OOM OIG Megeies y MAL peggy ay a4 y ith SPIE GY 
, ata. , Ly ey oe YO Lede ¥ J i YY 


Le ae 


Yi 


So 


SO 


BGK 
SSS 


SRR SS 
SSH 


EK 


mS 


Yi 
hy 


SS 


lef, y Ye 
j Yi 


SSS 


“Gif, 
tp 


S 


ys 


SESH 
a 
SO 


So 
SSO 
SSS 
SIN 


nS 


SoS 


Ss : 
SST 
SRS 


S 


WS 
SEV 


3 


Vi 


WERE 


a 


> 
SS 


SASS 












Me AN 26 R26. 
Ly 
“OLOGICAL sean 


BrecOte GS 5) 
Gruber, L. Franklin 1870- 
OAs 


What after death? 





oy i 
q »! 7 
ae cue 





ht ot 
no ae gi - 





JAP 26 192F 


a 
OP? A Al 
Be 5 ahi 
SN BS 


WHAT 
AFTER DEATH? 


An Examination of Several Theories of Fu- 
ture Retribution and an Exposition of the 
Teaching of the Scriptures as to the State 
of the Lost and the State of the Saved 


/ 
/ 


ve B 
LePRANKGIN’GRUBER DD. LED: 
Associate Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra 
Author of ‘‘Whence Came the Universe?”’ “The Theory 
of a Finite and Developing Deity Examined,” 


“The Truth About Tyndale’s New Testa- 
ment,’ ‘“The Einstein Theory,” Etc. 


a 


1925 


THE LUTHERAN LITERARY BOARD 
Burlington, Iowa 





— a 


Copyright 1925 by 
R. NEUMANN, BURLINGTON, 
IOWA 


FOREWORD 


There is no subject that has more persistently occu- 
pied the mind of man than that of his state in the 
future world. ‘‘What after death?” is a question that 
has been raised and discussed by Jew and Gentile, by 
Christian and heathen, alike. It involves man’s hap- 
piness not only hereafter, but even here. It implies, 
of course, an “after death’ or that death does not end 
all. 

So solemn a subject, one that deals with man’s eter- 
nal interests, must be approached with reverence. The 
torch of human reason may be used to throw some 
light along the pathway; but only as one is led by 
the light of revelation can he be safe against the pit- 
falls of error. And, indeed, only by that divine light 
will the subject be sufficiently illuminated to see and 
understand aright some of its dark and shadowy mys- 
teries. Nor can mere feeling or sentiment be relied 
upon in such an investigation. Truths and facts, not 
feeling, must determine conclusions; and these only 
in so far as they can, with some degree of certainty, 
be confirmed by incontrovertible arguments from the 
Scriptures, illustrated and enforced by reason based 
upon universally accepted laws. 

As Holy Scripture, however, is so explicit, and as 
its contents should naturally be taken at what the lan- 
guage seems very clearly to convey, it would hardly 
seem necessary to discuss at any great length its teach- 
ings as to the state of the departed. Nevertheless, 
because of many erroneous and conflicting theories as 
to the same, we believe that the following fresh dis- 
cussion will be welcomed. 

Throughout the whole, we have aimed at perspicuity 
and simplicity. The subject, however, necessarily 
demands an occasional reference to the Greek and 
Hebrew texts and an explanation of terms used there- 
in. But whenever Hebrew and Greek terms are used, 
they are given in English or Roman letters, for the 


better understanding, by the general reader, of the 
points discussed. 

We shall now send this book on its intended mission ; 
namely, that of helping to correct some of the errone- 
ous ideas as to these matters. And if, by the grace 
of God, it will be a means of leading honest seekers 
after truth to a better understanding of the teaching 
of God’s Word on this solemn subject, and thus afford 
new hope and encouragement to the faithful and also 
prove a warning to heedless individuals, we shall con- 
sider our labors amply repaid. To this end we now 
commend it to the candid reader; and may the Divine 
blessing attend its reading to the spiritual edification 
of many and to the glory of the triune God. 

Lt 3G: 

St. Paul, Minnesota, 


February, 1925. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 
FoREWORD . 3-4 

I INTRODUCTORY: Wi THERE Te Reericriog AFTER 
DeatTH? . Wise, eet Si Pa 9 
I Retribution Illustrated in Nature . 9 
II The Testimony of the Scriptures .. 11 
1 Evidence from the Old Testament 12 
2 Evidence from the New Testament . 13 

(1) Christ’s Teaching on the Subject in Para- 

bles. . 14 
(2) Christ’s Direct Teaching on the Subject 15 
(3) Other New Testament Evidence 17 
3 Terms Used . rap Ye 
(1) Sheol . . 18 
(2) Hades . ed 
(3) Gehenna . 23 

II ANNIHILATIONISM: WILL THE Wrceen Br arerats bie 
STROYED? . 27 

I Philosophic Annihilationism—A Preliminary | 
Consideration . Sp oy ate: a} 
A Materialistic Theory (Haeckel) 28 
B Pantheistic Theory (Hegel) 29 
II Penal Annihilationism . bated 30 
1 Conditional Immortality : 31 

(1) The Soul an Entity Distinct from the 

Body, Its Necessary Organ of Opera- 
tion 31 

(2) The Soul But a Function of the Physi- 
cal Organism pated See’ 30 
2 Annihilationism Properly So Called . 37 
(1) Sag aeatt: of Annihilationists Falla- r 
0 

(2) TeacHiite ‘of the Scriptures as to Death 

and Destruction and Continued Exis- 
tence. 42 
A Death Primarily a Separation . . 44 

B Both the Righteous and the Un- 

righteous to Share in the Resur- 

rection and the General Judg- 
ment . 45 

C Both to Be Consigned to Abodes 
for Continued Being . 45 

D Continued Being of Both Equal i in 
Duration . 45 

E To Both, Continued Being a Con- 
scious One . 46 

(3) Continued Existence in Punishment 
Not Inconsistent with God’s Love 48 


Contenis 


TI] Pavcnorannyrcaism: Is tun Sout ASLEEP BETWEEN 
DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION? 
T Alleged Scriptural Evidence for Psychopannychism 
Not Applicable . , 
1 Passages That Speak of the Dead as ‘Asleep ; 
2 Passages That Speak of the Dead as at Rest . 
II. Other and Direct Evidence of Scripture Against 
This Theory . 
III Psychopannychism Based upon False Premises as 
to the Nature of the Soul . 


IV PRoBATIONISM: WILL THERE BE AN Ones OF 88) Gave 
TION AFTER DEATH? . 
I Theory of Future Probation for the Heathen 
pone: 
1 Reasoning of Exponents of Theory of Future 
Probation for the Heathen Fallacious . 
2 The Question of a ‘Fair Chance’ Considered 
II No Future Probation for Those Who Die Impeni- 
ey OL 
1 Failure of t Supposed Scripture Proofs to Prove 
This Theor 
2 This Theory Dircotty Disproved by Scripture 
3 Evidence from the Element of Fixedness in 
Character 


V OR eeae et ioy Is THE ocr OF mnaeneuaee:. Tae 
ABLE? . a 
I Authoritative Statement of the Doctrine . 
1 As Given in Earlier Official Documents . 
2 As Given in Later Approved Works . 
I Brief History of the Doctrine . 
III Rome’s Direct Proofs for the Doctrine and Our 
Answer 
IV Rome’s Arguments ‘from Her Associated Doc- 
trines Equally Groundless 
1 Human Satisfactions, Penance, Good Works, 
Works of Supererogation : 
2 Indulgences, the Power of the Keys, Con- 
fession, Papal Infallibility : 
3 Prayers for the Dead . 
V Direct Evidence of Scripture against the Doctrine 
of Purgatory . 
VI Unrversauism: Arg ALL Men Frnauiy To Br Savep? 
Brief Outline of Its ae 
II Its Forms : 
III Its Basis. 
IV Arguments in Defense of Universalism Considered 
1 Argument from God’s Goodness 
2 Argument from Christ’s Atonement . 
3 Argument from the Omnipotence of God 
4 Argument from Supposed Philosophie Neces- 


Sh oe Mee eee eth are hy © Lesam Ceres 
5 Argument from the Justice of God . 


Contents 


6 Argument from Supposed Sympathy of the 
Saved with the Lost . 

7 Argument from the Very Nature of Scripture 
upon This Fomt:34¢3 : 

8 Argument from History and Tradition . 

V Universalism Further Disproved by Its Ground- 

lessness and Inherent Weaknesses . 

1 Universalism in Conflict with Both Con- 
sciousness and Scripture . : 

2 Concessions of Its Exponents ‘ 

3 Moral Dangers Involved in the Theory ; 

4 Its Fundamental Fallacies . a 


VII Erernatism: Witt Future PunIsHMENT BE Enpres? 
I Phenomenal Nature of Language Considered 
II Current Jewish Belief and the Teactiney of Bon 
ture . , 
III Objections Answered 


A That Eternal Life ie Eternal Death Have’ 


Reference to Quality Rather than Duration 

B That Endless Punishment Would Be in Con- 
flict with both God’s Mercy and Justice 

C es the Number of the Lost Would Be Too 

reat : 

D That the Happiness of the Saved Would Be 
Marred if Some Were Eternally Lost . 

E That Eternal Death Means Eternal Non- 
Existence 

IV Eternity of Punishment Logically Necessitated by 

Other Doctrines .. 

A To Minimize the Greatness, or to Shorten the 
Duration, of Future Retribution, Is to 
Minimize the Greatness of Sin . 

B To Minimize the Greatness of Sin Is to Mini- 
mize, or Even to Deny, Christ’s Sacrifice 
TOM bina. 

C To Minimize Christ’s Sacrifice for Sin Is to 
Minimize the Greatness of His Person 

D To Attempt to Shorten the Duration of Fu- 
ture Retribution Is, therefore, to LERy 
Christ’s Deity Pat SPs eit ra ALES 


VIII Tue Nartoure or Future PUNISHMENT: Wuat Is THE 
STATE OF THE LosT? ... tah ag: ears , 
I Elements of a Negative Nature . 
II Elements of a Positive Nature . 
1 Objective ; ‘ 
(1) Expressions or Terms Used 
(2) Meaning of These Terms . 
2 Subjective . CARTS 
IX Tur NATURE OF FUTURE Barer nance: Woo IS THE 
STATE OF THE SAVED? ; : 
I No Intermediate State of Unconsciousness ; 


N Contents 


II ee Direct Knowledge and Better MLE E es 


ing : 

III Future Recognition and Fellowship ; 235 
IV Satisfying Activity and Pian aene Development 237 
V TheGlory ofthe Redeemed. . . . . . 238 
VI Different Degrees of Glory . sitar See ie 2a 
VII Heaven a Place, as Well as a tate: foe 241 


InpEx . Ee pote RAT Rr YS. ye : ; » 41245-2563 


CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTORY 


WILL THERE BE RETRIBUTION AFTER DEATH? 


It may truthfully be said that everything is gov- 
erned by law. Indeed, what is law but the expression 
of the will of God? Thus all laws are meant for the 
carrying out of His righteous purposes. 


I RETRIBUTION* ILLUSTRATED IN NATURE 


The whole of external nature, even to its last detail, 
illustrates this universal government by law. And 
this is true also of our own beings. Thus bodily pain 
and pleasure, and misery and happiness of mind or 
soul, are governed by law. Pain and misery are the im- 
posed penalties for direct or indirect transgression of 
law, as pleasure and happiness are normally the re- 
wards for obedience. Indeed, it may be said that law 
governing man implies also possible transgression, and 
has, therefore, necessarily associated with it the idea 
of rewards and punishment. Thus that punishment in- 
errantly follows any transgression or breaking of the 
laws of nature, is a fact that is so patent as to be almost 
instinctively recognized. Even to the little child this 
law manifests itself on attempting to touch a hot stove 
with unprotected fingers. Nor is there any forgive- 

*Although the term retribution. in its wider theological sense, includes 


both punishments and rewards, it is used rather in the narrower sense of 
punishments in this chapter. 


10 What after Death? 


ness of such transgression of nature’s laws, except 
what may be afforded by the laws of healing and 
restoration in our. own beings. 


That life here is thus governed by law with asso- 
ciated rewards and punishments, no one will deny. 
And if government by law is universal, it must in- 
clude the psychical and spiritual spheres, the future 
as well as the present. As human personality con- 
tinues its identity, so must the possibility of misery 
extend beyond this sphere as really as does the pos- 
sibility of blessedness. 

The belief in future punishment is held by prac- 
tically all nations and races, and is, therefore, probably 
a moral instinct associated with an accusing con- 
science. And this universality of belief, or moral in- 
stinct, cannot easily be set aside even by the disbe- 
liever in the Christian Scriptures, as it unmistakably 
implies an objective reality. 

To object that such punishment could not be pos- 
sible on the part of a merciful God, and that surely 
He could and should have created the universe so as 
to preclude such a possibility, is to presume to know 
all God’s infinite purposes in creation. It is further- 
more to pass judgment on what He should have done, 
rather than to accept His own unmistakable revelation 
(to be set forth later), and His created universe for 
very plain illustration, that punishment awaits the 
wicked in the future world. Indeed, such future pun- 
ishment is just what we should expect from a perfect 
Being. To love righteousness is to hate evil; and the 
punishment of the evil doer is implied in divine mercy 
to the penitent. And that such punishment is just, 
our own consciences clearly testify. 

In line with what we have said above are the 


Introductory rye 


following emphatic words of Dr. Austin Phelps: 
“Though it [the doctrine of future punishment] is the 
doctrine of the Book, yet we do not depend for it on 
the Book alone. We depend on the nature of the mind 
of God for its groundwork; on the moral forces of the 
universe for its auxiliaries; on every prophetic men- 
ace of a human conscience for its confirmation; on 
the moral sense of every new-born child for proof that 
it will come direct and fresh from God, to the end of 
time; and on the analogies of human law for assur- 
ance that moral government can exist nowhere with- 
out its majestic and imperative working. The re- 
ligious beliefs of mankind never can break loose from 
such underground anchorage, in the nature of things. 
That is a very sure thing in the destiny of one world, 
which has the moral gravitation of all worlds flank- 
ing it on every side to hold it in position. A mori- 
bund theology! Is the north star moribund?” (My 
Study and Other Essays, pp. 51-52.) 

Thus even from nature, including man’s own being, 
many arguments might be drawn to show not only 
that the righteous will be blessed hereafter, but 
also that the unrighteous will be punished. But as the 
word of God plainly declares such punishment beyond 
the grave to be a solemn reality, it is hardly necessary 
for our purpose to develop this line of argument any 
further, at least at this point of our discussion. 


Il THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES 


The whole of revelation with its unfolding plan of 
salvation implies the reality of future punishment. 
Why would it have been necessary for the Son of God 
to come to this earth, indeed why any method of sal- 
vation and even any revelation, if there would be no 


12 What after Death? 


punishment after death? No, this is presupposed in 
virtually every warning of the Scriptures from Genesis 
to Revelation. 

Of the vast amount of Scripture evidence that might 
be cited, both from the Old Testament and from the 
New Testament, in proof of future punishment, we 
shall now proceed to give a few of the most important 
points. 


1 EVIDENCE FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT 


As already stated, all the many warnings of Scrip- 
ture, with which the Old Testament abounds, imply 
impending punishment. But its reality is also explic- 
itly taught in a number of places. Some passages, 
such as, ‘“‘The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, 
even all the nations that forget God” (Ps. 9:17), 
could not be explained in any other way. The term 
Sheol here cannot mean death or the grave, or even 
merely the place of departed spirits, as has been con- 
tended; for then the passage would be equally true 
of the righteous and of those nations that do not for- 
get God. Very emphatic also are the following words: 
“Though hand join in hand, the evil man shall not 
be unpunished . .. ._ the expectation of the 
wicked is wrath” (Prov. 11:21-28). And very ex- 
plicit are the words of Daniel 12:2: ‘And many of 
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, 
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt.” See also Numbers 32:23; Job 
31:30; Psalm 1:5-6; 11:6; 16:17; 49:72; Proverbs 
13:15; Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:14; Isaiah 5:24; 33:14; 
66:15; Ezekiel 18:4. Many other Old Testament 
passages in which the reality of future punishment is 
more or less clearly taught or implied might be cited, 


Introductory 13 


but, as the New Testament is the inspired exposition 
of the Old Testament and as its teachings are more 
explicit, it is hardly necessary to do so. 

Thus from the account of man’s expulsion from 
Eden to the prophet Malachi, the reality of future 
punishment underlies the Old Testament, becoming 
clearer as the time of the coming of man’s Saviour 
draws nearer and nearer. The Old Testament is in- 
deed not as clear as the New Testament; but this is 
in accordance with the very nature of revelation, 
which is consistently progressive. 

Moreover, although the Apocryphal Books must not 
be quoted as inspired Scripture, even they are not 
without their testimony on this subject, as they at 
least mirror Jewish belief of their time and general 
Jewish interpretation of Old Testament teachings on 
the subject. See Judith 16:17; 2 Maccabees 12 :48-46; 
et al. Indeed, as is abundantly evident, the reality of 
future punishment was part of Jewish belief through- 
out their history. And this was not less the case at 
the time of our Lord than during any other period, 
if we except the sect of Sadducees, who virtually de- 
nied the existence of the spiritual world. 


2 EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Coming now to the New Testament, we note that 
nowhere did Christ sanction Sadduceeism, nor did He 
ever attempt to gainsay the otherwise generally ac- 
cepted Jewish belief in future punishment. On the 
contrary, He repeatedly spoke in unmistakable terms 
about it, and, in fact, as of a reality that is so fun- 
damental as to need no proof. As Christ did not 
attempt to prove the existence of God the Father, 
which is fundamental to all other things, but only 


14 What after Death? 


further revealed Him, so He did not attempt to prove 
the reality of the future world and of future punish- 
ment. 


(1) Christ's Teaching on the Subject in Parables 


So important did Christ consider this doctrine of 
future punishment that He was never more emphatic 
than when He spoke on this and kindred subjects. 
Indeed, He devoted to it more parables than to any 
other doctrine. Note the force of His words in the 
parable of the tares: ‘The harvest is the end of the 
world; and the reapers are angels. . . . The 
Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they 
shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause 
stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast 
them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the 
weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (See Matt. 13 :24- 
30; 36-43). Not less emphatic is He in the parable 
of the drag-net: “So shall it be in the end of the 
world; the angels shall come forth, and sever the 
wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them 
into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping 
and the gnashing of teeth’ (See Matt. 13:47-50). 
Other parables of similar import might be cited, such 
as that of the marriage-feast (Matt. 22:1-14), and 
those of the ten virgins and the talents (Matt. 25:1- 
30). And, surely, every one, whether he considers the 
passage a parable or not, remembers Christ’s explicit 
declaration about the rich man: “And in Hades he 
lifted up his eyes, being in torments . . . And 
he eried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on 
me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his 
finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in 
anguish in this flame,” etc. (Luke 16:19-31). 


Introductory 15 


Some men object, however, that these are only 
parables; but they forget that the truth presented is 
not in the least lessened thereby. Indeed, Christ did 
not teach by parables to soften the truth but rather 
to make it more intelligible, as these solemn things of 
the spiritual world can, in their real essence, be de- 
scribed only in parable, or in the metaphorical terms 
of the language of this world, as we shall show in our 
chapter on EHternalism. Such things can best be 
taught by illustration, but all illustrations must be 
true to the real nature of things, or must really illus- 
trate the truth. 


(2) Christ’s Direct Teaching on the Subject 


It is, however, not only in parables that our blessed 
Lord plainly taught the reality of future punishment, 
but He frequently did so also directly, while He often 
clearly implied it. 

In sending out His disciples He charged them thus: 
“And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who 
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell’ (Matt. 
10:28). Nor is there any ground for the contention 
that the word hell (Gehenna) here means only the 
grave. If it meant only the grave, then the righteous 
would receive the same punishment as the unrighteous, 
as the grave is common to both. Indeed, the very con- 
trast between the killing of the body and the destroy- 
ing of both soul and body in hell, is meant to show 
that the latter is much more terrible than the former. 
And as the killing or death of the body already in- 
volves the grave, the destroying of both soul and body 
must involve more; and, therefore, hell (Gehenna) 
cannot mean the grave. The infinite power of God in 


| 


16 What after Death? 


destruction beyond the grave is contrasted with the 
little power of man in bodily killing and bringing to 
the grave. The terms death and destruction will be 
explained in the next chapter. Equally groundless 
is the contention that the word hell here means anni- 
hilation in what is called “the second death,” as we 
hope conclusively to show under Annihilationism. 
Indeed, as will presently be explained more fully, the 
world hell (Gehenna) can here refer to nothing else 
than the place of punishment beyond the grave—even 
beyond the resurrection and general judgment—for 
the punishment is to be shared by soul and body. 

Very emphatic also are the Master’s words in His 
account of the last judgment: ‘Then shall the King 
say also unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed 
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 
from the foundation of the world. . . . Then 
shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared 
for the devil and his angels. . . . And these 
shall go away into eternal punishment: but the 
righteous into eternal life’ (Matt. 25:31-46). See 
also Matt. 5:20-22; 7:22-23; Mark 10:43-48; Luke 
13 :24-28. 

Thus He who brought life and immortality to light, 
spoke of the punishment of the wicked in just as un- 
mistakable terms as He did of the blessedness of the © 
righteous. And this He did both in parable and 
directly. Thus in the parable of the ten virgins, the 
five foolish virgins are just as truly shut out as the 
five wise virgins are admitted; and in His account of 
the last judgment, those on the left hand just as truly 
depart into everlasting punishment as those on the 
right hand go into everlasting life. 


Introductory 17 
(8) Other New Testament Evidence 


The apostles, who were under the direct guidance 
of the Holy Spirit, were no less explicit upon this 
subject. Thus St. Paul speaks of “punishment, even 
eternal destruction from the face of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:6-9). See 
also 2 Cor. 5:10-11; Heb. 10:26-81. 

Very emphatic also are the words of Revelation 
14:9-11: “And another angel, a third, followed them, 
saying with a great voice, If any man worshippeth the 
beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his fore- 
head, or upon his hand, he shall drink of the wine of 
the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the 
cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire 
and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and 
in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their 
torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have 
no rest day and night, they that worship the beast 
and his image, and who so receiveth the mark of his 
name.” See also Revelation 20:10-15; 21:8. 


& TERMS USED 


It is important also to add something in explana- 
tion of several terms used in various Scripture pass- 
ages on this subject, because these have been made the 
chief battle-ground by those who have attacked this 
doctrine. The history of these terms in their develop- 
ment they have often wilfully ignored. Thus they 
have failed to distinguish between primary and de- 
rived meanings of terms. 

In general, words may be regarded as the vessels 
of ideas. Their contents vary with the age in which 
they are used or by which they are filled, even as also 


18 What after Death? 


they differ in their contents to different individuals. 
Thus the unqualified word law means a different thing 
to the scientist from what it means to the attorney, 
and to both it means much more than it means to the 
uninitiated. So the ideas conveyed to the father and 
his five-year-old son, by the words business, travel, 
and almost every other similar term, are very differ- 
ent indeed. But as the son grows to manhood the 
ideas conveyed are likely to approach ever more and 
more those of his father. 

This growth of ideas conveyed by various terms 
can not be ignored in such considerations. Thus the 
primary meaning of death was very different from 
various derived meanings that might be cited. The 
death of a man and the death of his pet schemes are 
very different things. Similarly might we speak of 
many other terms. Therefore, to read into Scripture 
the same meaning when it speaks of physical death 
as when it speaks of the death of the soul, can have 
no weight in the objector’s argument. Such arguing 
is as absurd as it would be to contend that the Spirit 
of God is the same as the wind; because such was 
the primary meaning of the Hebrew word ruach and 
the Greek word pneuma, which were used by the in- 
spired writers for the Spirit. Indeed, these writers 
always made use of such terms as they found at hand, 
and, placing them in new settings, or using them meta- 
phorically, they made them express the transcendental 
ideas of the spiritual world. But upon this point more 
will be said under Eternalism. 

(1) Sheol 

The Hebrew word Sheol is generally understood to 
have originally meant a cavity or a hollow, from a 
root meaning to make hollow, From this it came to 


Introductory 19 


mean a subterranean place, and hence the underworld: 
and later it was used more specifically for the place 
of future punishment. It is, therefore, used in the 
Old Testament to express somewhat different ideas at 
different times or in different connections, which 
ideas can, in most cases, be determined from the con- 
text. Young cites thirty-one places where, in the 
Authorized Version, the word Sheol is translated hell, 
and an equal number of places where it is translated 
grave, and three places where it is translated pit. We 
are here referring to the Authorized Version as to one 
still quite commonly used. ; 


In most places where translated grave it more or 
less vaguely means what we understood by this term 
(Gen. 42:38; 44:29 and 31; et al.). And where trans- 
lated hell, it is in some instances used in a somewhat 
general way of the unseen world, or of the place of 
departed spirits, though often involving the idea of 
punishment; and sometimes it is more definitely used 
of the place or state of future punishment, as, for 
example, in Psalm 9:17. But it must be emphasized 
that wherever this word Sheol is used in the Old Testa- 
ment, whether for the place of future punishment or 
simply for the unseen world in a general sense, or 
for the grave, it always carries with it the idea of 
darkness or evil. Its idea is that of a place of destruc- 
tion, or one with which destruction is associated (See 
Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11; 27:20). Therefore, even the 
Christian shrinks from the grave. 

Its use for the grave is only natural, because sin 
is the cause of death, making the grave and hell the 
two abodes of punishment, the one for the physical 
body and the other more especially for the soul. And 
although the person is spoken of as being in Sheol 


20 What after Death? 


where it is used for the grave—a fact that has been 
urged as an objection by some materialists and by 
those who hold to the sleep of the soul with the body 
during its death—-yet it is only the body that is there, 
as is clear from Ecclesiastes 12:7: ‘The dust return- 
eth to the earth as it was: and the spirit returneth 
unto God who gave it.” Even the Saviour speaks as 
about to be three days and three nights in the heart 
of the earth (Matt. 12:40), and yet during that time 
He promised to meet the thief on the cross in Para- 
dise (Luke 23:43). Indeed, the soul is often spoken 
of for the man, as the man or person is spoken of for 
the body. 


It should also be noted that where Sheol is used more 
definitely for what we understand as a place of pun- 
ishment, it is used for the abode of the wicked, and 
that as a warning, as in Psalm 9:17: “The wicked 
shall be turned back into Sheol, even all the nations 
that forget God’; Proverbs 5:5: “Her feet go down 
to death; her steps take hold on Sheol’; etc. To say 
that the wicked go down to, or are turned into, Sheol 
(hell), implies that, in this sense of the word Sheol 
(place of punishment for the soul), the righteous do 
not go down to Sheol. 

To argue against future punishment, therefore, by 
trying to explain away the term Sheol as meaning 
merely the grave, is totally to ignore the difference be- 
tween various uses of this term, which a little exam- 
ination would make very evident. It is true that the 
translation of the Authorized Version cannot be de- 
fended in all cases as the most accurate and explicit, 
yet careful examination, in the light of contexts, shows 
it to be in the main correct (See terms grave, pit and 
hell in Young’s Concordance). The Revised Version, 


Introductory 21 


American Standard Edition, simply carries over into 
the English translation the original word Sheol. And 
this would be all right, if that term were universally 
understood, and if all readers considered it in the light 
of contexts. But as this is not the case, it thus un- 
fortunately furnishes the occasion for various misin- 
terpretations. 


(2) Hades 


The word Hades also has various uses. Etymolo- 
gically it means the unseen, and therefore the invisible 
world. In the Greek classics it is used of the place 
or state of the dead, and in the Septuagint it is used 
as a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, and there- 
fore has several different meanings, as is noted under 
Sheol above. 


This old and then well-known word was used by 
Christ and the apostles for a rather more definite idea. 
It is thus always used in the New Testament of a 
place with which terror is associated, and in some 
instances it is clearly used for a place of retribution, 
as in the case of the rich man, who opened his eyes 
in Hades, a place of anguish (Luke 16:238-24). In 
Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15, it is a place the very 
opposite of heaven, and therefore a place of punish- 
ment. And in Matthew 16:18 it is clearly used fig- 
uratively for the realm or power of Satan, as follows: 
“And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it 
[the Church].” In only one place in the Authorized 
Version (I Cor. 15:55) is it translated grave, but here 
the word, in the oldest and best manuscripts (followed 
by the Revised Version), is not Hades but thanatos 
(death). Thus in ten places in which it is found in 


22 What after Death? 


the Authorized Version, it is translated hell (See Con- 
cordance). 


In Revelation 20:138-15 we read: ‘‘And the sea gave 
up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave 
up the dead that were in them: and they were judged 
every man according to their works. And death and 
Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the sec- 
ond death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not 
found written in the book of life, he was cast into 
the lake of fire.””’ From this it is clear that, as the sea 
and the grave gave up the bodies, so Hades gave up 
their souls, for judgment. And although the language 
is figurative, it thus appears that the Hades of the 
lost no less than the graves of their bodies will, at 
judgment, be superseded by the lake of fire. Hades, 
therefore, seems to be used of the place of the punish- 
ment of the lost soul between death and the resurrec- 
tion of the body, after which the reembodied soul will 
be consigned to the lake of fire, the final hell or Ge- 
henna of eternity, for body and soul. Thus Christ 
says, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him 
who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” 
(Matt. 10:28), using the word Gehenna (translated 
hell) of this place of punishment for body and soul. 

Thus Hades is undoubtedly used in the New Testa- 
ment for the place of the disembodied spirits of the 
unrighteous between death and the resurrection, as 
Abraham’s bosom or paradise is used for the place 
of the disembodied spirits of the righteous. Hades in 
the New Testament, as also Sheol in the Old Testa- 
ment, is not divided into two parts, the one for the 
blessed, called Elysium and the other for the lost, 
called Tartarus. This was indeed the conception of 


Introductory 23 


heathen mythology, but the inspired writers did not 
so use the term Hades. There is, therefore, no inter- 
mediate state or place that is common to spirits of 
both the saved and the lost, according to both the Old 
Testament and the New Testament. As already said, 
the two abodes of the blessed and the lost respective- 
ly between death and the resurrection, according to 
the New Testament, are Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom 
and Hades. And in how far these are identical with 
the final heaven and hell (Gehenna), is not revealed; 
but it must be evident that the state of punishment 
or of blessedness will not be complete until after the 
resurrection of the body and its reunion with the soul, 
that is, in the post-judgment heaven and hell (Ge- 
henna) of Scripture. We are told, however, that the 
blessed in Paradise are where God or Christ is, as 
Christ said to the thief on the cross, “To-day shalt thou 
be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:48); and as Paul 
so definitely says that “to be absent from the body” 
is “to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8) ; and as 
is seen from other passages that might be cited, if 
necessary for our purpose. 


(3) Gehenna 


To the south and west of Jerusalem there was a deep 
rocky ravine, which for centuries was known as the 
Valley of Hinnom. At the southern brow of the east- 
ern extremity of this valley, Solomon erected high 
places for Moloch, where, under Ahaz and Manassah, 
Children were offered to this idol. This valley, there- 
fore, later came to be so hated by the Jews that they 
used it as a common cess-pool for the city. There, 
perpetual fires were kept up for whatever of the de- 


24 What after Death? 


posits was combustible, especially such as bones of 
criminals. | 

The Greek form of the name of this valley, Gehenna 
or Geenna, as it came to be called, from its ceremonial 
defilement and from its ever-burning funeral piles, was 
used metaphorically to denote the place of the con- 
demned. For this our Saviour used it ten times in 
Matthew, three times in Mark, and once in Luke. Thus 
in Matthew 10:28 He says, “Rather fear him who is 
able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Gehenna). 
Indeed, with the exception of James 3:6, this word 
Gehenna is used by the gentle Jesus alone. And no 
one should attempt to explain away these solemn uses 
of the word by the Master Himself. The distinction 
between the use of Hades and Gehenna has already 
been given. 

We might also speak of other terms or expressions 
used for future punishment, but such consideration 
is hardly necessary for our purpose. It should, how- 
ever, be said that in 2 Peter 2:4, the word tartarasas, 
cast down to hell (Tartarus), is used, but evidently 
of the fallen angels alone, who are there reserved unto 
the final judgment. 

Enough has now been said, we believe, to show that 
all attempts, on the part of those who deny the reality 
of future punishment, by trying to explain away or 
to weaken the force of the terms used in Scripture 
on this subject, are utterly valueless as arguments in 
proof of such contentions. 

But there are several well-defined theories as to 
the fate of evil doers. And, as in the case of some 
other conflicting theories, all are professedly based 
upon the Scriptures. Of these theories there are five 
that deserve careful and somewhat thorough exam- 


Introductory 25 


ination. For the sake of uniformity in- nomenclature, 
these may be called Annihilationism, Psychopanny- 
chism, Probationism, Purgationism and Universalism. 
Under these terms, in their order, we shall therefore 
consider them, while under the term Hternalism we 
shall give in outline the unmistakable teaching of the 
Scriptures upon this solemn subject, followed by a 
brief discussion of the much-debated nature of future 
punishment. Then after this consideration of the 
state of the lost in the future world, we shall consider 
the blessedness of the saved. 





CHAPTER II 


ANNIHILATIONISM 
WILL THE WICKED BE UTTERLY DESTROYED? 


There are some who hold that the future punishment 
of the wicked consists either in being left, according 
to a Divine plan or law, spontaneously to pass out of 
existence, or in being blotted out by the external 
power of God. 

To those who are unwilling to accept either the doc- 
trine of the eternal punishment of the wicked or the 
theory of the certain salvation of all, this theory ap- 
peals very strongly. Indeed, the origin of this theory 
may be said to be traceable to a reaction against these 
two positions. Among those in England who have 
held this theory in some form have been the celebrated 
philosopher John Locke (d. 1704), and Archbishop 
Whately (d. 1863). In Germany, too, there have been 
eminent exponents of the theory of annihilationism, 
among them the philosophic theologian, Rothe (d. 
1867). But its adherents, both in England and on the 
continent, as well as in America, have been, and are 
today, comparatively few; and this is emphatically the 
case among theologians and philosophers of first rank. 

Before we consider, however, the supposed blotting 
out, or the passing out of existence, of the wicked as a 
punishment, we shall briefly examine what might be 
called philosophic annihilationism, as this, to a cer- 


28 What after Death? 


tain extent, forms the foundation of the theory or 
theories which we shall discuss more at length. 


{ PHILOSOPHIC ANNIHILATIONISM—A 
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION 


A The pure materialist of the Haeckelian school 
holds that all men pass out of existence at death. Ac- 
cording to him, the so-called soul, or the life, must 
cease to exist upon the dissolution of the body, though 
not as a punishment. Some eminent men have con- 
fessedly held this theory, among them Buechner, Fuer- 
bach and Moleschott. But, as we should like to show 
more fully, if space permitted, this view is founded 
upon a philosophically and Scripturally false concep- 
tion of the soul; namely, that what is called the soul 
is but a function of the brain, or at least of the bodily 
organism. 

That the soul is not a function of the physical or- 
ganism, is very clear from the account of man’s crea- 
tion, Genesis 2:7: “And Jehovah God formed man 
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos- 
trils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” 
And, surely, nothing could be plainer on this point 
than the words of Ecclesiastes 12:7: “The dust re- 
turneth to the earth as it was: and the spirit return- 
eth unto God who gave it.” That the soul is an entity 
different from the body, is not only directly and ex- 
plicitly taught in such passages as the above, but it 
is also everywhere else implied in Scripture. Indeed, 
this is generally assumed as so axiomatic and funda- 
mental to everything else pertaining to man as to need 
no proof. We shall, therefore, not multiply Scripture 
quotations on this point; and this seems all the more 





Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 29 


unnecessary, as the best results of modern psychol- 
ogy, as well as those of the physical sciences, confirm 
this teaching of Scripture (a point developed in the 
author’s Creation Ex Nihilo, Chapters II and III). 
As, therefore, the materialist’s fundamental assump- 
tion, that the soul is the product or function of the 
brain or of the physical organism, is erroneous or 
false, his theory of annihilationism cannot stand the 
application to it of science any more than that of 
Seripture. 

B The pantheist of the Hegelian school, who re- 
gards the so-called soul as only the individualized iso- 
lation of part of the general soul or universal whole, 
naturally holds that into this the soul is again merged 
or absorbed at the death of the body. The individ- 
uality, or personal identity, of all men is thus said to 
be equally lost, and therefore also without involving 
any idea of punishment. Associated with this form 
of what we are calling philosophic annihilationism, are 
such great names as Fichte, Strauss and Spinoza. 
But this view, to say the least; namely— 


“That each, who seems a separate whole, 
Should move his rounds, and fusing all 
The skirts of self again, should fall 

Remerging in the general soul,— 


Is faith as vague as all unsweet.” 


No, even personality, or our innate consciousness 
of personal identity, in no uncertain intimations sug- 
gests that 

“Eternal form shall still divide 
The eternal soul from all beside.” 


(Tennyson: In Memoriam) 


30 What after Death? 


It is hardly necessary for our purpose further to 
answer these two forms of the theory of annihilation- 
ism, as they are in conflict even with the very con- 
sciousness, or intuitive belief, of the race. Moreover, 
they are purely philosophic in their nature and pro- 
fessedly not founded upon the Word of God, with 
whose every teaching on this subject, in both the Old 
Testament and the New Testament, they are in con- 
flict. It may be stated, indeed, that even the most 
ardent defenders of philosophic annihilationism read- 
ily acknowledge that the Scriptures plainly teach the 
existence of the soul after death. But, of course, plac- 
ing their own conclusions above the teachings of in- 
spired prophets and apostles, they totally ignore the 
evidence of Scripture. 

As these two views do not, however, involve the 
idea of punishment, it might have seemed unneces- 
sary even to refer to them. But as they are partly 
fundamental to the theory which we'shall more espe- 
cially consider, and as their very absurdity or un- 
scripturalness is already a presumptive evidence 
against any theory of annihilationism whatever, we 
believe this reference to them here not to be amiss. 


II PENAL ANNIHILATIONISM 


We come now to a consideration of the theory of 
annihilationism as supposedly applied to the wicked 
and in which therefore the idea of punishment is in- 
volved. Of this also we note two forms. The one is 
based upon the assumption that the soul is by nature 
mortal, whether as a product or function of the body 
or as a separate entity, and that it would cease to 
exist upon the death of the body unless its life were 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 31 


supernaturally prolonged. The other form of this 
theory is based upon the assumption that the soul is 
an entity distinct from the body and is by nature im- 
mortal, and that its life would, therefore, forever con- 
tinue unless supernaturally extinguished. These two 
forms of the theory we shall now consider under the 
names conditional immortality and annihilationism 
properly so called. 


1 CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY 


The exponents of the first of these forms, assum- 
ing that immortality is a superadded gift conditioned 
upon proper use of means in this life, hold that future 
punishment consists in simply withholding this gift 
from the wicked. This form of the theory of anni- 
hilationism is therefore generally known as the theory 
of conditional immortality. According to this theory, 
man is by creation a mortal being, but he may by grace 
become immortal, by entrance into living communion 
with God. This was a favorite theory with G. Kunze 
and Edward White. Of this form of the theory there 
are also several varieties. 


(1) According to many of its advocates, the soul 
is indeed a distinct entity but the body is its necessary 
organ of operation. These hold that the soul, there- 
fore, is necessarily inactive or unconscious from the 
time of dissolution until the resurrection; and they 
might therefore also be classed among psychopanny- 
chists. And, pretending to follow Scripture, they 
hold that both the righteous and the wicked will rise, 
the one to immortal life, which will then be super- 
added, and the other, because of the withholding of 
the gift of immortality, to death and extinction. Some 
even think that the extinction or death of the wicked 


32 What after Death? 


will take place gradually, or that it will take place 
as the result of sin or inherent sinfulness only after 
they have suffered their merited punishment. 


Advocates of this variety of the theory of condi- 
tional immortality cite many Scripture passages in 
proof of their contention. Among Old Testament 
passages they quote Gen. 2:17: “But of the tree of 
the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of 
it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt 
surely die.” Therefore, as they did eat, it is held, 
man is now naturally mortal both in body and soul, 
and there can be no immortality for him except as a 
superadded gift. In connection with the above pas- 
sage they also cite Gen. 3:4, 19, 22-24. And, as sup- 
posedly in line with their theory of man’s fall, they 
also quote Deut. 30:15: “See, I have set before thee 
this day life and good, and death and evil”; Ps. 37:20: 
“But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of Je- 
hovah shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall con- 
sume; into smoke shall they consume away.’ Among 
other Old Testament passages cited are Deut. 30:19- 
Z20n4Pse2te aces 7el0, 

So in the New Testament they pretend to find con- 
firmation of their theory in such passages as Matt. 
16:26: “For what shall a man be profited, if he shall 
gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what 
shall aman give in exchange for his life?”; John 3:16: 
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should 
not perish, but have eternal life’; Rom. 7:5: “For 
when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which 
were through the law, wrought in our members to 
bring forth fruit unto death.’ Among other New 
Testament passages they cite Matt. 7:13-19; 13:30, 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 33 


40, 48-49; Luke 18:4-5; John 3:6; 5:24, 40; 6:33-35; 
S-bls 10°28% 11:25; Rom: 6:21-238':8 :6,.11, 138.91 Cor: 
o11;2 Thess, 1:9: 

In these passages, however, without exception, the 
terms death, perish, etc., very clearly do not imply a 
passing out of existence, whether used of the soul or 
even of the body, of which they are apparently used 
in a few places. Indeed, these terms are used in a 
metaphorical or moral sense for the terrible evil that 
thus befalls the soul. In the case of some of these 
passages there is indeed a difference of opinion as to 
whether these terms are used of the body or of the 
soul. But if, or wherever, they are used of the body, 
they are not even applicable in any argument for an- 
nihilationism. And if, or wherever, they are used of 
the soul, they are used only metaphorically or analo- 
gically, physical death being the basis of the metaphor 
or analogy. In Deut. 30:15, noted above, life and good 
are associated, and so are death and evil. And as good 
is the fruit or accompaniment of life, so is evil the 
fruit or accompaniment of death. But as there could 
be no evil to one annihilated, since the idea of evil 
presupposes conscious existence, the language would 
be meaningless if death here meant annihilation. And, 
therefore, as in this passage life is manifestly a state 
of continued existence with its associated good, so also 
must death be a state of continued existence with its 
associated evil. Therefore, death here does not mean 
annihilation of being any more than does life. The 
other passages might be analyzed in a similar manner. 

These men must not consider such passages alone, 
apart from their contexts, and without the light of 
explanatory passages that very manifestly are in 
direct contradiction of their contention, and therefore 


34 What after Death? 


conclusively nullify their arguments. Life is, indeed, 
existence, but it is more than mere existence; it is 
existence with the positive element of good or happi- 
ness in it. And so death, of whatever kind, is also 
existence; but it is existence with the negative ele- 
ment of evil, of unhappiness or misery, in it. And 
with this element of misery in it, it is existence with 
punishment. Thus the punishment of the future world, 
which is elsewhere called death (Rev. 20:14-15), is 
spoken of as being eternal just as truly as is life, as, 
for example, in Matt. 25:46: “And these shall go 
away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into 
eternal life.” 


Moreover, Jesus says, John 5:24: “Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believ- 
eth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh 
not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into 
life.” Here the believer is spoken of as being “‘passed 
out of death into life,” and as already in this world 
to have “eternal life.” He had been dead, but not 
annihilated, before—spiritually dead, dead through 
trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1)—but now in believ- 
ing he is passed from death unto life; and that life 
is the foretaste or beginning of everlasting life. The 
same truth is elsewhere also clearly expressed, as in 
John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath eter- 
nal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not 
see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Here 
also the believer is said to have eternal life. And the 
unbeliever is said not to see life, but to have the 
wrath of God abiding on him; and therefore, he is 
dead, and in that state of death he is under the wrath 
of God, and thus in a sense in punishment. And al- 
though thus dead—spiritually dead—he is nevertheless 






Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 35 


physically alive and psychically existing, as is also only 
too manifest by his unbelief and sad resistance to the 
Spirit of God. Among other passages in which is 
taught the same truth—that death is not non-exist- 
ence—are John 11 :25-26; Acts 1:25; Eph. 2:1-6; Col. 
Belo seooee ime o o>) Rev. 20210: 

But as we shall develop this point as to the mean- 
ing of the words death and destruction, etc., more at 
length later on, it is not necessary here to attempt a 
demonstration of the evident meaning of these terms. 

(2) According to a number of exponents of the 
theory of conditional immortality, even as according 
to pure materialists, the soul is but a function of the 
physical organism and with its dissolution ceases to 
exist. But those who at least pretend to follow Scrip- 
ture, generally hold that there will be a resurrection 
of both the good and the evil, the evil, however, pass- 
ing out of existence in a second or eternal death, and 
the good, in this resurrection, receiving immortality 
as a superadded gift. Some few, however, hold that 
only the good are thus raised, the evil having, from 
the very nature of the so-called soul, already passed 
into non-existence, out of which they are simply not 
called. And these latter are at least the more con- 
sistent in their theory. Indeed, there seems to be 
considerable haziness or confusion in the reasoning 
of all these various teachers, as the reader cannot 
fail to notice. But this view is plainly contrary to 
Christ’s own declaration: “All that are in the tombs 
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that 
have done good, unto the resurrection of life: and 
they that have done evil unto the resurrection of 
judgment” (John 5:28-29). Other passages of sim- 
ilar import might be cited. The resurrection, these 


36 What after Death? 


men, however, try either simply to spiritualize or al- 
together to explain away. Indeed, some advocates of 
other forms of the theory of annihilationism also deny 
or explain away the resurrection in their zeal to es- 
tablish their peculiar views. But the resurrection is 
not thus prevented nor the soul or life annihilated. 
This form of the theory of conditional immortality 
is not only contrary to Scripture, but it is also un- 
philosophic. In assuming that the soul is only a func- 
tion of the body, it necessarily regards death as the 
end of the whole being, of both soul and body, thus 
making its resurrection a virtual re-creation. <A the- 
ory of annihilationism, whose assumptions are such 
as to necessitate a virtual re-creation, not to speak 
of other inconsistencies or contradictions, to make it 
work, is certainly not worthy of the adjective phil- 
osophic. Not only is this implied monistic assump- 
tion as to man’s being in conflict with the express 
declaration as to man’s creation (Gen. 2:7), showing 
that the soul is a spiritual entity distinct from the 
body, but it is also equally in conflict with the declara- 
tion as to death in many places, notably in Ecclesiastes 
12:7: “The dust returneth to the earth as it was, and 
the spirit returneth unto God who gave it.” Here 
this distinction of soul from body is plainly taught, 
and it is also equally plainly stated that in the dissolu- 
tion of the body the soul does not cease to exist. 
But in order to give their theory at least the sem- 
blance of a Scriptural setting, its exponents incor- 
porate into it the doctrine of a resurrection. Yet, even 
in this, their theory is far from Scriptural. Their 
teaching as to the resurrection does not at all agree 
with that of the Word of God. Instead of teaching a 
resurrection of the body and its reunion with the 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? Sif) 


soul, they make it equivalent to a re-creation of the 
whole being, which, since death, had no actual exist- 
ence. According to this view, therefore, there would 
virtually be a new creation out of non-existence for 
the wicked, only to have them consigned again to the 
punishment of.a second passing out of being, or anni- 
hilation. Indeed, this form of the theory is not only 
unphilosophic, but it is made up of contradictions and 
absurdities; and, therefore, it requires no further 
answer. Let the reader carefully examine the inher- 
ent weaknesses of this and all the other erroneous 
forms of the theory of annihilationism considered in 
this chapter, and he will see the force of our argu- 
ment as a whole. 


2 ANNIHILATIONISM PROPERLY SO CALLED 


We have thus far considered several purely philoso- 
phic theories of annihilationism, to show that even 
the fundamental principles of any theory of annihila- 
tlonism are erroneous, as well as that form of the 
theory which is more generally known by the name 
conditional immortality. We shall now examine what 
is more generally known by the name of annihilation- 
ism, or what we here designate annihilationism prop- 
erly so called. 

According to the form of the theory of annihilation- 
ism which, accepting the duality of man’s being, as- 
sumes that immortality is by creation an inherent 
attribute of the soul—or annihilationism properly so 
called—the punishment of the wicked consists in anni- 
hilation, by the external power of God, of that being 
which would otherwise of itself continue to exist. 

It may be said that the soul is supposed to be natur- 
ally immortal, (1) from its kinship with, or being 


38 What after Death? 


made in the image of, the immortal or eternal God 
(Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7); (2) from its a prion forms of 
thought, which transcend space and time; and (8) 
from the law of conservation applied to psychic energy. 
Other proofs for the native immortality of the soul 
are often given, but these are enough of the proofs 
generally given to show the method of argument. But, 
we might add, the findings of modern psychology, and 
the very treatment of the soul by Scripture as an ever- 
lasting entity, are equally convincing, if not stronger, 
proofs of its native immortality. 

Postulating a naturally immortal soul, annihilation- 
ists contend that the Creator who called into being 
this immortal soul, must have power to destroy it. And 
indeed this contention, taken in itself, is true. But 
the soul’s destruction would then have to be by a 
miracle as much as its creation, as absolute destruc- 
tion would necessarily have to be the opposite of crea- 
tion. It is held that annihilation is necessary, or else, 
if evil were not thus finally blotted out, both creation 
and redemption would prove a failure. But what do 
we know either of the origin or of the purpose and 
end of moral evil? We do not have sufficient knowl- 
edge of these transcendent things to dogmatize on so 
profound a subject, especially in the face of God’s own 
express declarations in Scripture to the contrary, as 
already seen and as we shall yet more fully show. 
The question here is not as to whether God can thus 
destroy the soul (for He certainly could do so), but 
as to whether He will do so: and this the Scriptures 
definitely declare He will not do. 

There are also several varieties of this form of the 
theory of annihilationism. Some hold that final ex- 
tinction will follow, according to special Divine decree, 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 39 


from the dire results or effects of sin upon the other- 
wise undying personality, while some regard it as the 
result of the direct act of God’s power. Again, which- 
ever of the two varieties is held, some, like Rothe and 
the Socinians, think that this extinction will not take 
place till some time after the judgment, when Divine 
justice will have been satisfied. Others think that it will 
take place some time after death, but before the resur- 
rection of the just; and still others, that this extinction 
will take place at, or consist in, death itself. Those 
holding that it will take place at death, or at least 
before the resurrection of the just, of course, try to 
explain away the resurrection of the unjust, or alto- 
gether spiritualize the resurrection. 

Thus there are various views as to this theory. And, 
we may say at this point, there is perhaps no great 
name associated with, or strictly confined to, only one 
form or variety of the theory of annihilationism; and 
therefore it is even difficult definitely to designate the 
position of certain writers. Indeed, none of these 
theories, nor any one of their forms, is so distinct 
from the others as not to have many elements in com- 
mon with some of them. Even the viewpoint cannot 
be ignored. Hence there has naturally arisen some 
confusion in terminology among different writers. 
Our classification has, however, been necessary for 
intelligible treatment and is, we believe, as definite 
as such treatment requires. 


We shall now proceed somewhat at length to con- 
sider and answer this theory as a whole; namely, 
annihilationism properly so called. And we shall en- 
deavor to show that it is not only unscriptural but 
also unphilosophic. 


40 What after Death? 


Its exponents hold that the wicked are literally de- 
stroyed so as to cease to exist. To prove this, they 
quote a number of Scripture passages, such as Matt. 
10:28: ‘And be not afraid of them that kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him 
who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”; 
Psalm 97:3: “A fire goeth before him, and burneth 
up his adversaries round about”; Matthew 18:40: “As 
therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with 
fire; so shall it be in the end of the world.” Other 
passages cited are Psalm 34:16; 37:9; 114:20; Matt. 
7:18. But we need not multiply passages, especially 
as some of those noted under conditional immortality 
are also used by exponents of this form of the theory. 


(1) Reasoning of Annthilationists Fallacious 


Annihilationists apparently do not read Scripture 
passages in the light of other explanatory passages. 
They apparently fail to understand the Scriptural 
meaning of the terms death and destruction, or to rec- 
ognize the metaphorical element in these words. In- 
deed, in a thing so transcending human experience 
and therefore above human understanding, all terms 
must be drawn from what is apparent and tangible. 
Thus physical death and destruction here are made 
the tangible basis or type of death and destruction 
hereafter, or of what is called the second death, or 
eternal death, as well as of spiritual death even here. 
And as death and destruction here seem to be cessa- 
tion of being, these men have carried that idea over 
into the future world. To do so, however, is a plain 
petitio principii, as that is fundamental to the very 
thing to be proved. Their proof is one of analogy 
only, and the tangible basis of their analogy—physi- 


: 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 4] 


cal death—is thus assumed to be what it is not; name- 
ly, annihilation. 

To assume death and destruction here to be extinc- 
tion in order to prove death and destruction hereafter 
to be so, is to commit intellectual suicide. Extinction 
in death here would make impossible another death 
and extinction hereafter, unless in the resurrection 
an absolutely new creation of being were effected. 
But such new creation would have to include also that 
of the personality, which, however, Scripture teaches, 
both by implication and directly, to be the same in 
the resurrection as that which lived in this world. 
Thus the Saviour said to the disciples after His resur- 
rection, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I my- 
self” (Luke 24:39). But this point is so apparent as 
to require no further quotations. 

Moreover, to assume physical death to be extinction 
for the sake of establishing their contention, is to 
assume without proof what can be shown both from 
reason and from Revelation not to be true, as already 
intimated and as we shall now attempt to show. Death 
and destruction here are not extinction. Even de- 
struction of a thing by fire, of which some men make 
so much, is not in any sense annihilation, but only 
the union of its substance with oxygen, with a res- 
iduum of mineral matter, called ashes. And the re- 
sultant carbon dioxide, water and ashes together 
weigh exactly the same as the substance consumed 
plus the oxygen with which its elements entered into 
new combinations. Or, in other words, the object’s 
elements that have thus been separated by fire are in 
no way changed; but they are identical, both in na- 
ture and in quantity, with those of the object before 
the combustion, only that they have gone into new 


42 What after Death? 


combinations. And if they could, by the power of 
man, thus again be brought together, the object 
burned would be restored to its original form. 

So in death and the gradual dissolution of the body, 
not only are the products the same, but even the pro- 
cess, as 1f the body were destroyed by fire, only that 
the separation, etc., of the elements is much slower. 
The body’s substance is, therefore, not annihilated, but 
it is only resolved into its elements for new combina- 
tions, or changed in its form. And the soul, which is 
a simple, spiritual substance, cannot even thus be re- 
solved; but it is only separated from its dissolving 
tenement (2 Cor. 5:1). And as it was not originated 
from matter (Gen. 2:7), it is not dependent upon 
matter, or upon the body, for its existence. Indeed, 
as the natural entrance or birth of a human being 
into this world is not a new creation ex nihilo either 
as to body (propagation) or as to soul (traduction), 
but is a generation from parents, by the Divine bless- 
ing (Gen. 1:28; 5:3; et al.), so is death not an anni- 
hilation of the substance either of the body or of the 
soul but only a dissolution and transformation, or a 
change of their form or mode of existence. If, there- 
fore, destruction and death here are not extinction 
of being, what becomes of the argument of these men 
in using them, at least by implication, to prove extinc- 
tion or annihilation hereafter? 


(2) Teaching of the Scriptures as to Death and ~— 
Destruction and Continued Existence 


That death and destruction in the Seriptures do not 
mean annihilation, can easily be proved. In most 
cases these terms are used only of temporal rela- 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed ? 43 


tions; and as already noted, they have different 
meanings in different connections. In Job 19:10 we 
read, “He hath broken me down on every side.” If 
broken down or destroyed meant annihilated, this 
language would be meaningless, as Job was alive when 
he spoke these words. In Luke 9:60, Christ says, 
“Leave the dead to bury their own dead,” thus using 
the word in two very different senses in the same sen- 
tence. The first word dead refers to men physically 
alive. In Ephesians 2:1-2 St Paul says, “And you 
did he make alive, when ye were dead through tres- 
passes and sins, wherein ye once walked.” These 
Ephesians are spoken of as having been ‘‘dead through 
trespasses and sins,’ but as having walked in that 
state “according to the course of this world.” Thus 
they were spiritually dead while they were physically 
alive. The same is strikingly expressed in 1 Timothy 
5:6, “She that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while 
she liveth.” So also Christ’s words from the throne to 
the Church in Sardis are so plain as hardly to need 
any comment, “I know thy works, that thou has a 
name that thou livest, and thou art dead” (Rev. 3:1). 
Similarly, in many other places, death and destruction, 
or equivalent terms, are used of those otherwise fully 
alive: (John 5:40; 6:53: 10:10; 1 John 3:14; e al.). 
Other passages are of similar import as to the spir- 
itual world, as we shall see later on. 

It is even plainly taught that death here is the be- 
ginning of another life hereafter. In John 12:24, He 
who is the Truth says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, 
it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much 
fruit.” And in 1 Cor. 15:36, St. Paul, in his argument 
for the resurrection of the body, says, “Thou foolish 


44 What after Death? 


one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened 
except it die.” Thus death is declared not to be anni- 
hilation but the birth of more abundant life. Many 
striking analogies from nature in illustration of this 
point might also be given, but we must pass on to 
our next pont. 


A The idea involved in death, wherever and how- 
ever the term is used, is that of dissolution or separa- 
tion. When the term is used of natural or physical 
death it always means dissolution of the living union 
of man’s twofold nature, or the separation of the soul 
from the body. Thus bodily death implies dissolution, 
the separation of the constituent elements from one 
another. In Ecclesiastes 12:7 we read, “The dust 
returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit return- 
eth unto God who gave it.” This signifies that in the 
parting of the soul from the body, in death, the body 
goes to dissolution but the soul lives on. Note also 
Gen. 25; Ps. 31:5; Matt. 27:50; Luke 16:19-31; 23:46; 
Acts 2b9° 2° Gor. :528*012:2 "92 sPeterel 213-14; 


When the term is used of spiritual death it means 
the dissolution of the bond of spiritual union between 
man and his Maker, or a separation of the soul from 
God (Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 5:6). To be dead 
in trespasses and sins is to be spiritually dead, and 
implies such separation. Such an idea of separation 
is even involved in the statement of the father about 
his prodigal son, ‘““This my son was dead, and is alive 
again” (Luke 15:24). When it is used of eternal 
death, or of what is called ‘‘the second death,” it means 
a separation from God that is eternal, as St. Paul says, 
“Who [that obey not the Gospel] shall suffer punish- 
ment, even eternal destruction from the face of the 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 45 


Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:9). 
See also Revelation 2:11. 

B Both the righteous and the unrighteous are said 
in Scripture to share in the resurrection and the gen- 
eral gudgment, as already intimated. In John 5:28-29 
Christ says, “The hour cometh, in which all that are 
in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; 
they that have done good, unto the resurrection of 
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrec- 
tion of judgment.” In Acts 24:15 we have these very 
explicit words, ‘‘There shall be a resurrection both of 
the just and unjust.” This is also implied in the 
Saviour’s words in Matthew 12:36-37, “And I say 
unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, 
they shall give account thereof in the day of judg- 
ment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and 
by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” The same 
is taught in other passages bearing on the judgment. 

C The teaching of Scripture is also explicit that 
both the righteous and the unrighteous will be con- 
signed to abodes for continued being. In His account 
of the last judgment Christ says, ‘‘Then shall the King 
say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of 
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world. . . . Then shall 
he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared 
for the devil and his angels. . .  . And these 
shall go away into eternal punishment: but the right- 
eous into eternal life’ (Matt. 25:34-46). This lan- 
guage is so explicit that it should preclude even the 
possibility of any argument to the contrary. The same 
is also taught in the case of the rich man and Lazarus 
(Luke 16:19-31) and in that of Judas (Acts 1:25). 


46 What after Death? 


D_ It should also be noted that the Scriptures teach 
that this continued being, or the future existence, of 
the righteous and that of the unrighteous are of equal 
duration. Indeed, the duration of this continued exist- 
ence of the unrighteous is expressed in the very same 
terms as that of the righteous, as will be more fully 
seen later on. See Matt. 25:46 and other passages 
bearing on the subject. Therefore, if the duration 
of the existence of the unrighteous were limited by 
annihilation, then that of the righteous would be sim- 
ilarly limited. But if, on the other hand, the dura- 
tion of existence of the righteous is unlimited, or eter- 
nal, as all readily admit, then that of the unrighteous 
must necessarily also be unlimited. 


EK This continuation of being, in the case of both 
the righteous and the wicked, is, moreover, a fully 
conscious one, as is clearly set forth in a number of 
passages, notably in those referred to above. They 
teach that both the saved and the lost are in a state 
of consciousness, and in different abodes and condi- 
tions, even between death and the resurrection of the 
body and its reunion with the soul, and therefore be- 
fore the general judgment. That they are conscious 
already immediately after death is clearly taught in 
the immediate transition of both the rich man and 
Lazarus to their separate abodes (Luke 16:22-28). 
This is equally clear from Christ’s express declaration 
to the thief on the cross, “To-day shalt thou be with 
me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:48). 

Moreover, without such continuity of consciousness 
there could be neither suffering nor happiness to the 
departed, the latter of which is, however, confessedly 
taught in many places. And if the righteous are con- 
scious and are happy hereafter, then, from the analogy 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? AT 


of Scripture and its similar treatment of both, the un- 
righteous must also be conscious and unhappy here- 
after. To be sure, absence of consciousness to the 
wicked and therefore absence of suffering, before and 
also after the resurrection and judgment—or indeed 
annihilation—would be in accordance with the fond 
wishes of many. This is especially true of those who 
fear that future punishment might adversely affect 
them. But the belief in such absence of consciousness 
and of suffering does not cause them to be absent. And 
such belief is not only in conflict with Scripture, as 
already shown, but also with the analogy of nature 
and with the very instinct of man and his innate idea 
of justice. 

Furthermore, if the wicked were annihilated, or 
deprived of all consciousness, then the punishment (if 
it could be called punishment) for all the wicked would 
be equal, whereas different grades of wickedness, as 
represented in different sinners, would in all justice 
require different degrees of punishment, as even all 
these men would have to admit. 

Thus, both from the language of the passages cited 
and from their contexts, as well as from the whole 
analogy of Scripture, it is clear that both the righteous 
and the unrighteous will share in the resurrection and 
the general judgment; that both will be consigned to 
abodes, which will be separate, for continued exist- 
ence; that this continued existence of the unrighteous 
will be equal in duration to that of the righteous; 
and that to both this continued equal existence will 
be a conscious one. And we might add, even in antici- 
pation of our discussion under eternalism, that if the 
continued existence of the righteous is eternal, then 
that of the unrighteous must necessarily also be eternal, 


48 What after Death? 


(3) Continued Existence in Punishment Not 
Inconsistent with God’s Love 


The objection is made that the God of Scripture is © 
love, and that, therefore, such dealings with the wicked 
could not be in accordance with His nature. But this 
would be ignoring that other truth, that the God of 
Seripture is just. And to deny the plain teaching of 
Scripture on the unmistakable justice of God and His 
future punishment of the wicked, would invalidate 
the teaching, which they use in argument, on the love 
of God. Indeed, instead of being contradictory, these . 
two fundamental truths are not only perfectly con- 
sistent, but they are really complementary. The 
unlimited love of God toward that which is right and 
good is complemented in His very nature by His 
equally unlimited hate of that which is wrong and 
evil. But more of this later. 


Moreover, to rule out of court future punishment 
on the plea of God’s goodness, in the face of His ex- 
press declaration, is to assume to know more about 
Him and His work and about His purposes in punish- 
ment than does the omniscient God Himself. 


The utter weakness of this argument of the objector 
is seen in the fact that it would have equal weight 
against any suffering whatsoever, not only hereafter 
but even here, where we see it on every side. And 
this is even true of the punishment of the wicked 
angels, likewise clearly taught in Scripture (2 Peter 
2:4; Jude 6). To attempt to brush the matter aside 
by saying that such punishment would involve God’s 
dealings in inexplicable mystery, is only to attempt 
to dodge the question; for the existence of wickedness 
or of any evil whatever, is equally a mystery, as in- 


Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 49 


deed all God’s workings are wonderful and hidden in 
impenetrable mystery. 

Having shown that the theory of annihilationism 
is not only unscriptural but also unscientific, we shail 
proceed to consider the theory of psychopannychism— 
the subject of the next chapter. 

















CHAPTER III 
PSYCHOPANNYCHISM 


IS THE SOUL ASLEEP BETWEEN DEATH AND 
THE RESURRECTION ? 


There is a very ingenious theory, that, upon the 
death of the body, the disembodied soul lapses into a 
state of unconsciousness and remains in that state 
until the resurrection of the body and its reunion with 

the soul. This theory is called psychopannychism, 
- from the Greek words psyche (soul), pas or pan (all) 
and nyx (night), because the soul is supposed to sleep 
the whole night of death. This theory will be treated 
somewhat briefly, as some of its elements are indirect- 
ly treated in other chapters. 


I ALLEGED SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR 
PSYCHOPANNYCHISM NOT APPLICABLE 


A number of passages are cited in proof of this 
theory, a few of which we shall quote; but we shall 
show that they are not really apropos. 


1 PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF THE DEAD AS ASLEEP 

When about to raise the ruler’s daughter, Jesus 
said, “Give place: for the damsel is not dead, but 
_sleepeth” (Matt. 9:24). When about to return to 
_ Judea to raise Lazarus, He said, “Our friend Lazarus 


52 What after Death? 


is fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out 
of sleep . . . Lazarus is dead” (John 11:11- 
14). In closing his account of the stoning of Stephen, 
St. Luke adds, “And when he had said this, he fell 
asleep” (Acts 7:60). In his great argument for the 
resurrection of the dead, St. Paul writes, ‘““‘Then they 
also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished 

. . But now hath Christ been raised from the 
dea the first fruits of them that are asleep” (1 Cor. 
15:18-20). Again he writes, ‘“But we would not have 
you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall 
asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have 
nohope . . ._ For this we say unto you by the 
word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are 
left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise pre- 
cede them that are fallen asleep” (1 Thess. 4:13-15). 
In Daniel 12:2 it is written, “And many of them that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt.” 


The contention of psychopannychists is, that, as in 
all these passages the dead are spoken of as asleep, 
their souls must be in a state of unconsciousness. But 
such reasoning, to say the least, is very superficial. 
Such a conclusion is certainly not deducible from the 
passages quoted, as a little examination should con- 
vince the reader. It will readily be seen that in all 
these passages it is the body that is metaphorically 
spoken of for the person, as sleeping. Thus in Daniel 
12:2, the dead are spoken of as sleeping in the dust 
of the earth, which, as is evident, is not the abode of 
the soul. Surely, “Dust thou art, to dust returnest, 
was not spoken of the soul.” 





Is the Disembodied Soul Asleep ? 53 


The appearance of the body in death is so similar 
to its appearance during sleep that in all the literatures 
of the world death is often thus metaphorically spoken 
of as a sleep. And, indeed, many an orthodox min- 
ister of the Gospel thus speaks of it occasionally at 
funerals, without in the least meaning to endorse this 
theory of the sleep of the soul. As in normal sleep 
the voluntary activities of the body are suspended so 
as to give it needed rest until the awakening to fresh 
activities, so in death the body is, as it were, at rest 
from the toils of this world until the resurrection to 
new life and new activities. 

Moreover, as is conclusively proved by the investi- 
gations of psychologists, and as is illustrated in dreams, 
even in sleep the mind or soul is never asleep. Even 
during the profoundest sleep of the body the soul is 
shown to be ceaselessly active; and, therefore, the soul 
is not dependent upon the body for its activities. So, 
upon its separation from the body in death, the soul, 
not being dependent upon the body for its activities, 
does not lapse into a state of sleep or inactivity. 


2 PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF THE DEAD AS AT REST 


Psychopannychists also quote such passages as the 
following: ‘We who have believed do enter into that 
rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, 
They shall not enter into my rest,” etc. (Heb. 4:8) ; 
“He entereth into peace; they rest in their beds, each 
one that walketh in his uprightness” (Isa. 57:2); “And 
there was given them to each one a white robe; and 
it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a 
little time until their fellow-servants also and their 
brethren, who should be killed even as they were, 
should have fulfilled their course” (Rev. 6:11). Among 


54 What after Death? 


similar other passages quoted are Rev. 14:13 and 
Luke 2:29. 

Such rest on the part of the righteous is, however, 
not a state of unconsciousness, as is seen from numer- 
ous passages of Scripture, and generally from their 
own contexts. Thus in Rev. 6:11 those who had died 
for the truth are indeed said to rest for a little sea- 
son, but the passage unquestionably represents them 
as in a state of consciousness. It is said that white 
robes are given unto them, but that they are to “rest 
yet for a little time,” etc. Thus they are spoken of 
as resting, or waiting, while robed, manifestly imply- 
ing conscious readiness. Such rest does not consist 
in inactivity or sleep, but it consists in a patient wait- 
ing for the great day of the Lord (Isa. 26:20; Dan. 
12:12). In Rev. 14:13 we are told, “Blessed are the 
dead, who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith 
the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for 
their works follow with them.” Here the dead who 
die in the Lord are truly said to rest from their 
labors, but unconsciousness is not at all implied. The 
rest and peace spoken of in these passages is clearly 
one from the labors of the body and the evils of this 
life. For that matter, unconsciousness is a state that 
could not be described as blessed any more than it 
could be described as cursed. Both blessedness and 
cursedness or misery necessarily imply or presuppose 
consciousness. ‘Therefore, the dead who die in the 
Lord will be conscious, as also necessarily will be those 
who do not die in the Lord. 

That the blessed dead are alive in the spirit and 
conscious, is also clearly shown in the appearance of 
Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration 
(Matt. 17:2-3). The same is also implied in Christ’s 





bat | 


Is the Disembodied Soul Asleep? D 


answer to the Saddusees, Matt. 22 :31-32, ‘““But as touch- 
ing the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that 
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the 
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God 
of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of 
the living.” Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are here said 
by the Lord to be alive. Their spirits dwell with God, 
though their bodies still rest in their graves of earth. 


But some contend that, as St. Peter on the day 
of Pentecost spoke of David as not being ascended 
unto the heavens (Acts 2:34), therefore David could 
not have been alive or in conscious blessedness. But 
in this passage also the body, not the soul, is referred 
to. Christ alone in body ascended into heaven, while 
David as to his body was, and still is, in the grave, and 
as it were at rest. But in spirit, like all the dead, 
David was, and now is, in a state of consciousness. 
The body may thus metaphorically be said to sleep, or 
to rest, but not the soul. 


II OTHER AND DIRECT EVIDENCE OF 
SCRIPTURE AGAINST THIS THEORY 


Many passages in the New Testament either explic- 
itly teach or clearly imply that the souls of the saved 
enter a state or place of blessedness, and that the 
souls of the lost enter a state or place of misery, even 
immediately after their departure from the body. 
Thus the Saviour plainly taught the immediate transi- 
tion of the righteous Lazarus into a state of conscious 
blessedness, and that of the unrighteous rich man into 
a state of conscious misery (Luke 16:19-31). 

Some men, like the so-called “Pastor” Russell, would, 
however, get rid of this passage, so manifestly against 


56 What after Death? 


their peculiar views, by perverting it into a mere 
allegory. But the absurdity of their explanation is 
evident to every one, especially upon reading this pas- 
sage in the light of the many other passages that un- 
equivocally teach the truths contained in the generally 
accepted interpretation of this passage. Moreover, the 
very realistic nature of this passage is against any 
allegorical interpretation of it. We shall therefore 
consider further answer to this objection unnecessary. 

This immediate transition of the soul is also taught 
in Christ’s words to the thief on the cross, “Today 
shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The 
same is also unmistakably implied in St. Paul’s words, 
“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 

.  . But Iam in strait betwixt the two, having 
fie desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very 
far better’ (Phil. 1:21-23). St. Paul also implies 
conscious blessedness in his wonderful description of 
his rapture into the third heaven, 2 Cor. 12:2-4, espe- 
cially in verse 4, “how that he was caught up into 
Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is 
not lawful for a man to utter.” See also 2 Cor. 5:1-8. 
The Master taught the same truth in his last discourse 
to His disciples and in His high-priestly prayer (John 
14-17), as well as on other occasions. 

Other passages of similar import might be cited, 
but these are sufficient to show that the argument of 
psychopannychists from those passages of Scripture 
that speak of the dead as resting or sleeping, are value- 
less for their contention. Indeed, we might call atten- 
tion to the fact that God is also spoken of as resting 
from His work of creation (Gen. 2:2); and even 
though many a rationalist has tried to teach that He 
is resting and no longer concerned about His work, 


Is the Disembodied Soul Asleep? 5T 


or to reduce Him simply to’an unconscious force in 
the universe, He is the one great conscious Personality 
by whom all things continue to exist. Strikingly has 
the Psalmist said, ‘‘Behold, he that keepeth Israel will 
neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4). 


Thus the souls of the saved enter upon a state of 
essential blessedness immediately after death (Luke 
1G6e22-20%022 45% Phil. 1321-23; et'al.)s” The place or 
their abode in this disembodied state of blessedness is 
variously called Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22-23), 
Paradise (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4); but it is unmis- 
takably a place of happiness. And, as it is where 
Christ is (Phil. 1:21-23), itis also appropriately called 
heaven, even though it undoubtedly is not altogether 
identical with the ultimate heaven of reunited soul and 
body, as stated in the first chapter. 


-And so likewise the souls of the lost enter upon a 
state of punishment immediately after death (Luke 16: 
23-24), in a somewhere called Sheol in the Old Testa- 
ment and Hades, generally, in the New Testament— 
apparently to be superseded by the Gehenna of eternity 
for reunited soul and body after the general judgment. 


The soul is, therefore, clearly seen to be in a state 
of consciousness immediately after death. In the 
case of the saved it is a state of conscious blessedness ; 
in the case of the lost it is a state of conscious mis- 
ery. But the blessedness of the saved, as also shown 
elsewhere, is not yet the complete and perfect blessed- 
ness that the reunited body and soul will enjoy after 
the resurrection and the final judgment; and the mis- 
ery of the lost is not yet the complete misery of soul 
and body after the judgment. 


58 What after Death? 


III PSYCHOPANNYCHISM BASED UPON FALSE 
PREMISES AS TO THE NATURE OF THE 
SOUL 


Probably the source of the theory of psychopanny- 
chism may be found in a false conception of the na- 
ture of the soul, such as is entertained by many of its 
exponents. By starting out with the theory that the 
mind or soul is a function of the brain, one is logically 
led to the conclusion that the soul is either dead or 
asleep and inactive during the period of bodily death. 
If the soul were a function of the brain, then with the 
death of the body it would necessarily cease to be, at 
least as a conscious existence. But here is the falla- 
cy; namely, that the soul is a function of the brain 
or a property of matter. As is not only evident from 
Seripture, but also from the best results of modern 
psychology, the soul is an entity totally different from 
the body. It is clearly a superadded entity, as is es- 
pecially seen from Gen. 2:7, “And Jehovah God 
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became 
a living soul;” Eccl. 12:7, “the dust returneth to the 
earth as it was: and the spirit returneth unto God who 
gave it.” The same is also evident from Christ’s 
charge to His disciples, “And fear not them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul’ (Matt. 
10:28). So also, in the Psalmist’s prophecy, he clear- 
ly distinguishes between the soul of the Messiah, which 
is not to be left in Sheol and the body which is not 
to see corruption (Ps. 16:10). See also Acts 2:27; 2 
Cor. 5:1-9; Phil. 1:20-23. 


Thus the Bible everywhere, either directly or by im- 
plication, treats the soul as an entity distinct from 


a 





Is the Disembodied Soul Asleep ? 59 


the body—as a spiritual substance; and therefore it 
is not composed of material elements, nor is it even 
the function of such elements of the body. 

As the soul and the body are, therefore, two dis- 
tinct entities, the soul is not dependent upon the body 
for its existence, nor even for the existence of all its 
functions. To say that spirit cannot act without a 
body is to deny that God and the angels do so act. To. 
deny the possibility of independent action on the 
part of a disembodied spirit, is to assume to know 
better the truth about the spirit world than He whose 
teachings are our only unerring source of knowledge 
on this subject, in which teachings it is clearly and 
emphatically affirmed. 

Thus this theory, which is so soothingly prescribed 
as an opiate for an accusing conscience, is shown to 
be neither Scriptural nor scientific. Indeed, of the 
five erroneous theories considered in this volume, this 
one is probably the weakest. That the departed are 
now dead or figuratively asleep, and therefore totally 
unconscious, according to the preachments of the late 
self-styled ‘Pastor’ Russell, and some others, is there- 
fore totally untenable as an article of faith. And yet 
there are many otherwise well-meaning people who 
easily become the unsuspecting victims of the siren 
songs of these subtle perverters of the truth. But it 
is surely not safe to forsake the pure Scriptural faith 
that has been sealed with the blood of many noble 
martyrs, for a theory altogether fanciful, Scripturally 
and scientifically foundationless, and propagated by 
men who would ruthlessly set aside the tried truth 
of the centuries. 


Celtel 
eat oe he 





CHAPTER IV 
PROBATIONISM 


WILL THERE BE AN OFFER OF SALVATION 
AFTER DEATH? 


The doctrine of future punishment for the wicked 
is so repellent to human wish and sympathy that the 
idea of a future probation for the as yet unsaved has 
appealed strongly to many people. The belief in such 
a probation has, by some men, almost necessarily been 
associated with the perplexing question as to whether 
there is any possible salvation for heathen, who here 
have no means of knowing Christ. 

We regret to say that among those who have either 
openly taught, or fondly believed in or hoped for, an- 
other probation, there have been many otherwise good 
and noble men, whose names stand high in theolog- 
ical science and literature. But while we admire their 
efforts, out of sympathy, to find in such a theory a 
possible mitigation or shortening of the sufferings of 
the lost, we can find neither any Scriptural warrant, 
nor any other valid argument, to establish this the- 
ory and sustain their fond hopes. 


I THEORY OF FUTURE PROBATION FOR THE 
HEATHEN GROUNDLESS 


The theory of future probation has perhaps most 
plausibly been held with reference to those (heathen) 


62 What after Death? 


who here have no conscious knowledge of the only 
Saviour and those (unbaptized children) who do not 
receive the ordinary means of grace. See Matthew 
18:14; 19:14; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5-6; Titus 
3 :5-7. 

The state of children dying unbaptized, however, it 
is hardly necessary for us to discuss. But we may 
say briefly that, while we are bound, by Christ’s 
declaration and command, to baptism, as God’s or- 
dinary means of imparting the new birth, no one can 
affirm that God cannot and does not extraordinarily, 
without the means, impart the new birth to children, 
especially to children of believers, if baptism is neg- 
lected. To be sure, this would not strengthen the pe- 
culiar contention of those who reject baptismal re- 
generation or even infant baptism, for we are speak- 
ing of the extraordinary, not the ordinary, operation 
of the Holy Spirit. 

And of adults who accept Christ as their Saviour, 
we might, in a general way, use the well-known adage, 
“Not the neglect, but the contempt of baptism con- 
demns.” But, surely, adults who really accept Christ 
as their Saviour, will not neglect baptism, much less 
will they despise it; for to accept Christ is to accept 
His teaching. Thus, after St. Peter’s convincing and 
convicting sermon on the day of Pentecost, we are 
told, ‘“‘They then that received his word were baptized”’ 
(Acts 2:41). So of the people of the city of Samaria 
_it is said, “When they believed Philip preaching the 
glad tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the 
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men 
and women” (Acts 8:12). Even Simon the sorcerer 
believed and was baptized (Acts 8:13). The same is 
said of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-38), of St. 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 63 


Paul (Acts 9:18), and of others (Acts 10:48; 16:15, 
33). But if salvation is possible where baptism has 
been neglected or could not have been received, it does 
not come during any future probation, as already in- 
timated. And, therefore, such possible salvation 
would not afford any argument for this theory. 


1 REASONING OF EXPONENTS OF THEORY OF FUTURE 
PROBATION FOR THE HEATHEN FALLACIOUS 


The exponents of this theory hold that, as Christ 
alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and as, with- 
out faith in Him there can be no salvation, it would 
be unfair, if those who here have no opportunity to 
know Christ or to receive the means of grace, and 
therefore to be saved, would not have such an oppor- 
tunity in the future world. As there is, however, no 
confirmation of the theory of future probation in His 
Word, such a contention is in effect a questioning of 
the wisdom and justice of the infinitely wise and ab- 
solutely righteous God Himself, as to His arrange- 
ment for man’s salvation. It is a projection of limited 
human reason into the workings of the unlimited divine 
Mind. To such the words of Romans 9:20 might well 
be applied, ‘“‘O man, who art thou that repliest against 
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
it, Why didst thou make me thus?” 

And yet, some men press their contention about a 
so-called fair chance, in direct conflict with God’s 
Word, even to the point of irreverence. As an illus- 
tration we shall quote the following words of Dr. 
Marion D. Shutter: “It is asserted that God has the 
right to do with us as he chooses. We are his crea- 
tures. If he condemns us and makes us suffer for- 
ever, it is well. With all reverence, no; he has no 


64 What after Death? 


such right. The fact that he has brought us into this 
world, upon the contrary, lays him under obligations 
to give us somewhere, a fair chance and ample op- 
portunity to learn his will and do it. It binds him to 
seek our good and only our good” (Justice and Mercy, 
p. 56). The above writer might profit much by read- 
ing the whole passage of Romans 9:14-21: “Is there 
unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith 
to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, 
and I will have compassion on whom I have com- 
passion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor 
of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. 
. Hath not the potter a right over the clay, from 
the same lump to make one part of a vessel unto honor, 
and another unto dishonor?” See also Exodus 33:19. 
A fallacy in the reasoning of these men is that they 
by implication assume that equal rewards must 
necessarily be associated with equal privileges or op- 
portunities. But this assumption itself is made up of 
two assumptions, both of which we shall show to be 
unfounded. 


In the first place, it is a mere assumption that fu- 
ture rewards will be equal. It is in direct conflict 
with the plain teaching of Scripture, as for instance 
in the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:12-26), where . 
the rewards are plainly in accordance with the faith- 
ful use of the pounds or opportunities. Among other 
passages that might be cited are Daniel 12:3, “They 
that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the 
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness 
as the stars for ever and ever;” and Matthew 19:28, 
“Ve [the twelve disciples] also shall sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” See 
also Matthew 5:19; Luke 12:47-48. 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 65 


Thus it is seen that future rewards—the glory, etc., 
of the blessed—based upon faithfulness, will be un- 
equal. Unfortunately, these rewards are rather gen- 
erally confounded with salvation itself and eternal life. 
These are the free and equal gift to all the elect as 
believers, because of Christ’s merits, as it is written, 
“Not by works done in righteousness, which we did 
ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us” 
(Titus 3:5-7) ; “God so loved the world, that He gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on 
Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 
3:16). This distinction between salvation, through 
Christ, and the superadded rewards of faithfulness, 
must here be clearly kept in mind. . The former in 
its essence is equally enjoyed by God’s saints already 
immediately after death. The latter will be meted out 
upon the judgment of the reunited body and soul at 
the end of time, according to the deeds done in the 
body (Matt. 25 :34-40; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22-12; et al.), 
when these deeds will have attained their full fruition. 
Hence, these rewards will be unequal and distinctive. 


And just as future rewards will be unequal, so will 
the future punishments of different individuals be un- 
equal (Luke 12:47-48; et al.). All the condemned are, 
indeed, already at the moment of death, equally lost and 
separated from God and all that is good, as has already 
been stated; and this punishment will be endless, as we 
shall show under Hternalism. But their positive pun- 
ishments are said, on the day of judgment, to be meted 
out to reunited body and soul, according to their evil 
deeds (Psp G2 sl 4c Proves 24:12° Jer’ 17:10 5°Matt. 12: 
36-37; 16:27; Luke 10:12; 20:47; Rom. 2:6; 1 Peter 
1:17; Rev. 2:23), when these deeds will have attained 
their full fruition. These punishments must, there- 


66 What after Death? 


fore, also be unequal and distinctive. But in all things 
it will follow from their own sinfulness and rejection 
of grace. 

In the second place, the reasoning of these men ap- 
parently assumes equality of privileges as a normal 
thing in God’s universal order, while perhaps nowhere 
and at no time are privileges of any kind whatever 
exactly alike. As to this life, it is certainly contrary 
to our own observation and experience. The health, 
disposition, happiness, wealth, etc., of no two indi- 
viduals, not even of twins, are alike; nor are their 
privileges or opportunities alike. And not only is this 
true of natural things, but Christ has unmistakably 
shown it to be true also of spiritual things, and notably 
in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), accord- 
ing to which different talents or opportunities are 
given to different individuals. See also 1 Cor. 12: 
4-31; Eph. 4:11-12. Nor does the parable of the 
pounds (Luke 19:12-36), properly understood, nullify 
this truth. 

Moreover, the assumption itself—that equal rewards 
must necessarily be associated with equal privileges 
or opportunities—made up of the above two assump- 
tions as subject and predicate, is only an assumption, 
implying, as it does, that rewards and privileges must 
necessarily have an invariable ratio. For, just as 
truly as no two persons are equally talented or gifted, 
or have equal opportunities, so will no two persons 
hereafter, or even here, be relatively rewarded, or ac- 
cording to their respective talents or opportunities. 
No, the respective ratios between the talents or oppor- 
tunities and the rewards of different individuals are 
different as every one must acknowledge. Thus even 
equal talents or opportunities in different individuals 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 67 


would be followed by very different rewards; and equal 
rewards, if such were possible, might follow very dif- 
ferent talents or opportunities. The rewards (or 
punishments) are therefore not in accordance with 
relative talents or opportunities, but rather with rela- 
tively faithful use (or unfaithful abuse) of them, as 
clearly taught in the parable of the talents. 

The privileges enjoyed and the light possessed are, 
however, declared to be considered in the distribution 
of future rewards, as well as of future punishments 
(Luke 12:47-48). Thus the light and the privileges 
of the babe and the philosopher, of heathen and Chris- 
tian, of savage and sage, will be an element in the 
final awards. But, surely, no one can justify himself 
with the plea that he did not have the chance of Peter, 
Paul or John. All will then readily acknowledge the 
absolute justice of the great Dispenser in His distribu- 
tion of rewards and imposition of punishments. 


2 THE QUESTION OF A “FAIR CHANCE” CONSIDERED 


It might well be asked, What constitutes a fair 
chance? Perhaps the knowledge of Christ on the part 
of Saints Peter and Paul was, considered in an abso- 
lute sense, not so much greater than our own, or even 
than that of the child that has been fed only upon 
the milk of the Word. The difference between the 
capacities of a gill and an ocean is virtually the same 
as the difference between the capacities of a barrel 
and an ocean. That is, the difference between these 
two differences is relatively inconceivably small. So, 
the difference between a layman’s (or even a child’s) 
knowledge of Christ and of what lies beyond man’s 
limited understanding, is after all much the same as 


68 What after Death? 


that between an apostle’s knowledge of Christ and of 
what lies beyond man. That is, a complete knowledge 
of Christ would not be very much more beyond that 
of the average Christian than beyond that of an apos- 
tle. Indeed, at best all our knowledge of Christ, the 
atonement and grace, God, etc., is but fragmentary, 
and therefore necessarily incomplete. But this, in- 
stead of deterring us from trying to learn more about 
God and the things pertaining to man and his salva- 
tion, should be all the greater incentive for us to en- 
deavor to grow daily in the knowledge of God and 
man. Surely, even here faithfulness is required of 
us. ‘He that is faithful in a very little is faithful 
also in much” (Luke 16:10). 


We must not, however, be understood to imply that 
there can be salvation by knowledge. The reader will 
observe that we are here considering the question of 
a fair chance, which is rather generally associated with 
knowledge, especially by advocates of probationism. 
We are, indeed, saved by Christ through faith as the 
hand that appropriates Christ, although some knowl- 
edge necessarily underlies faith, as St. Paul writes, 
“How shall they believe in him whom they have not 
heard” (Rom. 10:14). 

Scripture does not even make any exception to 
God’s way of salvation—faith in the atoning sacrifice 
of Christ. This is declared to be the one test; but 
the possible differences of degree with reference to 
which this test may be applied, no one can determine. 
Some light is thrown upon this point by St. Paul in 
Romans 2:11-16: “For there is no respect of persons 
with God. For as many as have sinned without the 
law shall also perish without the law: and as many 
as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 69 


law; for not the hearers of the law are just before 
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified; (for 
when the Gentiles that have not the law do by nature 
the things of the law, these, not having the law, are 
the law unto themselves; in that they show the work 
of the law written in their hearts, their conscience 
bearing witness therewith and their thoughts one with 
another accusing or else excusing them); in the day 
when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to 
my gospel, by Jesus Christ.” St. Paul here argues 
that even the gentiles have sufficient light to render 
them inexcusable before the law, and thus in antici- 
pation answers these modern objections to God’s 
dealings with them. St. Paul here, as in other pas- 
sages, recognizes not even the barest possibility of any 
probation beyond the tomb. 


And should the Good Lord save some heathen, who 
in this life had no knowledge of the Saviour, it would 
not be well for Christians to know it, else they might 
fail to attempt to bring to them the message of the 
cross. But, surely, there is no certain foundation in 
the Bible for any such belief. Nor can Matthew 
8:10-11 be pressed into service as a proof, as is gen- 
erally done. The declaration by the Lord, “that many 
shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit 
down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the 
kingdom of heaven,” clearly refers to the future con- 
version of the gentiles by the apostles and their suc- 
cessors, as is very evident from the context. In fur- 
ther proof of this fact it is well also to consider such 
passages as Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 2:2-3; 11:10; Malachi 
1711; Luke 138:24-30; Acts 10:45; 11:18; 14:27; 
‘Romans 15:9-12; Ephesians 3:4-6. 


70 What after Death? 


But if God, in His infinite wisdom and providence, 
should have made provision for the salvation of 
heathen, it is clear from the whole analogy of Scrip- 
ture that it would not have been to save them in a 
probation after death. It would rather have been to 
save them in some to us mysterious way even here, 
perhaps because of a longing on their part for a Sav- 
iour and forgiveness and a feeling of penitence—and 
perchance at the moment of dissolution. And then it 
would probably have been only in accordance with 
God’s foreknowledge of their conscious attitude toward 
the ordinary means of grace, if these had come to 
them. And if such are saved, this would seem with- 
out the shadow of a doubt to be God’s method of their 
salvation. But such salvation would itself be the 
strongest argument against any future probation 
whatsoever. 


Moreover, such a doctrine of future punishment 
would even be dangerous in the light of Christ’s great 
missionary commission. At least, to argue, as has 
been done and as is still being insisted upon by some, 
that all heathen will indiscriminately be saved, would 
be committing theological suicide. For; if all were 
saved without the ordinary means of grace, it would 
surely afford a plausible reason, not only to the mis- 
sionary sluggard, but perhaps even to the missionary 
enthusiast, not to bring to them such means; as, in 
that event, some, rejecting them, would then ultimate- 
ly be lost. 


II NO FUTURE PROBATION FOR THOSE WHO 
DIE IMPENITENT 


It has been held by some, that for those who die 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 71 


umpenitent there will be another probation between 
death and the resurrection and the final judgment. 
Indeed, according to some of these men, all the wicked 
might thus ultimately be saved. Some hold that many, 
and others that all, will eventually be saved after suf- 
fering punishment till the law of justice will have been 
satisfied. This might then, if necessary, be followed 
by another probation, which, in the light of better 
knowledge of their real interests, etc., it is claimed, 
would necessarily be improved or accepted. This 
form of the theory, it may be said, has some elements 
in common with the theory of Universalism, which is, 
of course, more inclusive than that of probationism. 


That this form of the theory of probationism is con- 
trary to the whole tenor of Scripture, is evident. The 
Bible always treats this life as the time of probation; 
and with death that probation ceases, as we are re- 
peatedly warned in Scripture. Thus St. Paul writes, 
“And working together with him we entreat also that 
ye receive not the grace of God in vain (for he saith, 
At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee, and in 
a day of salvation did I succor thee: behold, now is 
the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of sal- 
vation)” (2 Cor. 6:1-2). Other passages will be cited 
later, when considering this point more at length. 


Indeed, there is an instinctive acknowledgment on 
the part of all races and classes of men everywhere 
alike that with death all probation for the soul will 
end. And therefore, as eternal interests are at stake 
in our attitude toward Christ here, and as the tenure 
of life is uncertain, so that any moment might be the 
last and the end of probation, probation here has truly 
solemn significance. 


T2 What after Death? 


1 FAILURE OF ALLEGED SCRIPTURE PROOFS TO PROVE 
THIS THEORY 

Adherents of the theory of future probation point 
for a proof of their teachings to such passages as 
Matthew 12:31-32: “Every sin and blasphemy shall 
be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the 
Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever 
shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall 
be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the 
Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
this world, nor in that which is to come.” These 
men, however, fail to recognize in this expression of 
Christ, in adding “that which is to come,” the mani- 
fest emphasis He meant to lay upon the utter hope- 
lessness of one committing this greatest of all sins. 
For other sins there is said to be free forgiveness to 
the penitent in this world; for this one there is none, 
not even in the world to come. No sins, it is em- 
phatically said, are to be forgiven in the future world, 
and surely least of all this sin against the Holy Ghost. 
The Saviour thus rather emphasizes that there is no 
forgiveness hereafter, and therefore no future pro- 
bation. 

The writer is well aware of the interpretation put 
upon this passage by Dean Farrar, as well as by some 
other writers. Farrar would translate the word ation, 
in this passage, age, making the last clause of the 
passage, by his interpretation, read thus: “It shall 
not be forgiven him, neither in this (Jewish) age, 
neither in the (Christian) age to come” (Hternal 
Hope, p. XLVIII.). The word aion indeed primarily 
does mean age, but here, as always in such connec- 
tions, it is used in contrasting the present and the fu- 
ture, the temporal and the eternal, this life or world 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 713 


and that which is to come, and may therefore rightly 
be translated world. 


If it still be contended, however, for the sake of 
argument, that the future or coming age here means 
the Christian age or dispensation as contrasted with 
the then present Jewish age or dispensation, it may 
be said that even with that interpretation our con- 
clusion above is not adversely affected. Even with 
Farrar’s interpretation it does not open the possibility 
of forgiveness of any sins in the future world during 
the Christian age any more than the forgiveness of 
the special sin generally known as the unpardonable 
one, as the Jewish and Christian ages or dispensations 
appertain to this world. And, of course, with Far- 
rar’s own translation, the then future or coming age 
would not be the period of time allotted to the life of 
the individual here, but it would mean the indefinite 
period of the Christian dispensation here till the time 
of judgment. And as after the general judgment even 
Farrar would not have held to a possible forgiveness, 
his own argument is turned against him in the fact 
that the statement is emphatic that that sin will not 
be forgiven in that supposed age up to the judgment, 
and therefore never. And our contention as to the 
impossibility of forgiveness of other sins after death, 
by this very emphatic declaration of Christ, is not in 
the least set aside. 

Among other exponents of the theory of a possible 
forgiveness beyond the grave is Dr. Shutter, who, 
however, merely adopts the view of Dean Farrar. He 
even insinuates that this sin against the Holy Ghost 
is especially being committed by those theologians 
who hold to what is unmistakably the Scriptural doc- 
trine. He says: ‘I should like to suggest the in- 


74 What after Death? 


quiry whether it is not a sin against the light of this 
age, against great light, for ministers to go on year 
after year ringing changes upon the words everlasting 
and hell and damnation, when the ablest scholars and 
critics of the world have shown conclusively that those 
terms ought not to stand in a correctly translated ver- 
sion of the New Testament?’ (Justice and Mercy, 
p. 197). This writer even suggests that this sin 
might be committed by those who do not inform them- 
selves “in regard to the position of a liberal church,”’ 
or in other words, by those who are unwilling to adopt 
his views in the very face of Scripture. But, to be 
sure, it should seem safer, even in spite of such in- 
sinuations as to a possible committing of the sin 
against the Holy Ghost, in company with Christ and 
His inspired apostles not to adopt such views of mod- 
ern liberal theologians, than with these men to hold 
views in open conflict with the solemn teaching of 
Christ and His apostles. Let the reader judge which 
is the safer teaching to accept and choose whom to 
trust and follow. 

Another Scripture cited in proof of their contention 
for a future probation is 1 Peter 3:18-20: “Christ 
also . . . made alive in the spirit; in which also 
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that 
aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of 
God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a 
preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were 
saved through water.” Very few exegetes of first 
rank have, however, held that this was a preaching 
of the Gospel unto salvation. The word translated 
preach being a form of kerusso, to herald or proclaim, 
not of euaggelizo, to evangelize or preach the Gospel, 
any interpretation as to the preaching of the Gospel 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 75 


of salvation is untenable. Some, like Calvin, have 
held that it consisted in the announcement of salvation 
to the spirits of the just. Others have held that this 
announcement included also that of damnation to the 
unjust. At the most, it was undoubtedly a declaration 
or proclamation of the Gospel to the condemned in 
confirmation of their punishment as being just in ac- 
cordance with their life and attitude while in this 
world of grace. 


It is apparent that Christ did go to the place of de- 
parted spirits, and that He appeared in the abode of 
the unrighteous, as well as in that of the righteous. 
But this was, without doubt, as is evident from the 
above text and from the analogy of Scripture, to pro- 
claim His victory, as is indicated by the word kerusso. 

That Christ went to the place of the righteous, prob- 
ably immediately after His death, is shown by His 
word to the thief on the cross, “Verily, I say unto thee, 
To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 
23:43). And to contend, as is done by some, and 
notably was done by “Pastor” Russell, that the word 
to-day refers to the time when Christ spoke instead 
of the time when the thief was to be with Him in 
Paradise (thus placing the comma after today instead 
of before it), is so manifestly absurd as to need no 
argument here to disprove it. In this way Scripture 
could be made to teach almost anything, as indeed it 
has been made to do by many false teachers. 

That Christ went to the place of the condemned, is 
most clearly shown in 1 Peter 3:18-20, already quoted 
—to proclaim His victory over death, etc. The spirits 
in prison in this passage were disobedient men when 
Noah pleaded with them and preached unto them and 
they were reserved unto the day of judgment to be 


76 What after Death? 


punished; and that day had, of course, not yet come. 
They may be said indeed to have received the Gospel 
from Noah’s pleadings and warnings. But the con- 
tention of these men is that in 1 Peter 4:6, a form of 
the word euaggelizo is used and is translated preached: 
“For unto this end was the gospel preached even unto 
the dead, that they might be judged indeed according 
to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the 
spirit.” But they fail to see that this no doubt re- 
fers to such preaching of the Gospel to them while 
in this world during ‘“‘the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 
6:2), and therefore does not likely refer to any preach- 
ing by Christ Himself, as in 1 Peter 3:18-20. At any 
rate, all attempts to read into this passage the idea 
of a possible offer of salvation beyond this life would 
be against the whole tenor of Scripture elsewhere. 


It should, moreover, emphatically be said that, upon 
these men’s own interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 
4:6, these passages would not constitute any proof for 
a general future probation. All that they would thus 
show would be that Christ, probably in His disem- 
bodied state between His death and resurrection, 
preached to those who had died unsaved before the 
flood or before His advent. It would then only show 
that God in Christ specially and extraordinarily inter- 
posed on behalf of those who had lived before His in- 
carnation and had not received, or could not have re- 
ceived, the blessings of His atonement. But it would 
prove nothing as to a future probation for those dying 
after the Saviour’s advent, and all the more certainly 
not for those dying wilfully impenitent. Indeed—and, 
of course, upon their own interpretation of these pas- 
sages—the very concrete and definite statements there- 
in given, as of this particular extraordinary case, 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 77 


would be proof positive that they were not meant to 
teach any universal future probation for the lost. 
Therefore, even this argument of exponents of fu- 
ture probation has no validity. 

Another passage of Scripture cited in proof of the 
theory of future probation, is 1 Cor. 15:22: ‘For as 
in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made 
alive.”’ This passage is, however, not at all applicable 
in such a contention. To do so is clearly to wrest it 
from its context for the sake of argument. When it 
is read in the light of the context, the word all clearly 
means all the saved, or all that are in Christ. But 
should any of these men still refuse to accept this 
very manifest meaning and make the all absolutely 
unlimited, even then it would not be an argument for 
them, as it is true that even the wicked are also made 
alive by the power of Christ, but to a life, or an ex- 
istence, of punishment. This existence, in being a for- 
feiture of a life of blessedness, is called the second 
death, ete. (Rev. 2:11; 20:6; 21:8). 

These men also point to other passages, such as 
Matthew 10:32; 11:21-24; Romans 5:17-21. But 
these passages could easily be shown to be irrelevant. 

It should also be said that the same arguments that 
are usually used in an attempt to prove the possibility 
of salvation to the lost after death, could with equal 
force be used to prove the possibility of a future dam- 
nation of the saved. Indeed, a possible future salvation 
would imply a possible future fall, as could readily 
be shown. 


2 THIS THEORY DIRECTLY DISPROVED BY SCRIPTURE 


The Word of God emphatically teaches that a man’s 
condition hereafter depends upon his attitude toward 


78 What after Death? 


Christ and his conduct here. It is expressly so de- 
clared by our Lord in His account of the last judgment 
(Matt. 25 :31-46), as well in many other places. How 
explicit the account of the rich man and Lazarus on 
this point! The rich man’s state followed upon his 
conduct on earth, and it was fixed, nor was there for 
him any other probation. And even for his five breth- 
ren upon earth there was held out no other hope, nor 
any other means or opportunity of salvation, than such 
as the rich man himself had. And both the rich man 
and his brethren are represented as having had suf- 
ficient light on earth (Luke 16:19-31). See also 
Romans 2:5-16; Galatians 6:8; 2 Timothy 4:7-8; He- 
brews 12:1. 

Thus in the above it is clearly implied that death 
here ends the day of grace and the possibility of sal- 
vation. And even if it were conceded that in the case 
of those spoken of in 1 Peter 3:18-20 we have an 
exception, then surely it would be only an exception; 
and as an exception it would not in the least set aside 
the rule, but rather only prove the rule, as we have 
shown. But, to be sure, we are far from accepting 
such an interpretation of these passages. 

We shall now endeavor somewhat fully to show that 
Scripture, not only by implication, but also directly, 
teaches that death here ends the day of grace. This 
is implied in many Old Testament warnings, as al- 
ready noted (Chapter I); and in other places it is 
also more or less clearly stated. Thus, when Isaiah 
said, “Seek ye Jehovah while he may be found” (Isa. 
55:6), he clearly implied also a time when He may not 
be found. See also Psalm 88:11; 95:7; Ecclesiastes 
11:3. Indeed, in the Old Testament this seems rather 
to be assumed or taken for granted. But what is 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 79 


taught only in dim outline in the Old Testament, is 
very clearly stated in the fuller and completer revela- 
tion of the New Testament. 


Christ emphatically taught that there is no other 
probation, but that a person’s destiny is fixed at death; 
and this point bears repeating and developing. In the 
parable of the ten virgins we read, “Afterward came 
also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 
But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I 
know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know not the 
day nor the hour.” (Matt. 25:11-13). The same is 
also taught in Luke 13:25-28: ‘‘When once the mas- 
ter of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, 
and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the 
door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he shall answer 
and say to you, I know you not whence ye are,” etc. 
And again, in Luke 16:26 we have these explicit 
words: ‘Between us and you [the rich man] there 
is a great gulf fixed, so that they that would pass 
from hence to you may not be able, and that none may 
cross over from thence to us.” And very clearly is 
this implied in the words that Christ put upon the 
lips of the rich man in Hades, as already intimated, 
when he requested that Lazarus, or one from the dead, 
be sent to his father’s house to warn his five brethren 
before they died and their destiny would be fixed, 
“that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into 
this place of torment” (Luke 16:27-30). Nor was the 
answer, as given in the next verse, less explicit: “If 
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they 
be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” 

In answering the attack of the Pharisees in the 
eighth chapter of St. John, the Saviour said, “I go 
away, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin: 


80 What after Death? 


whither I go, ye cannot come . . . I said therefore 
unto you, that ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:21- 
24). See also Luke 12:20-31; John 7:34; 9:4; 12:35- 
36. In the Lord’s solemn warning to be prepared for 
His second coming for the resurrection and final judg- 
ment, He is equally emphatic that after the resurrec- 
tion and judgment there will be no probation. See 
Matthew 24:42-51; Luke 21:34-36. And, of course, 
in the Master’s account of the judgment itself, it is 
_so plainly taught that after that there will be no pro- 
bation, as to shut off all further argument against this 
teaching of Scripture (Matt. 25:31-46). The words 
of verses 41 and 46 should be final, “Then shall he say 
also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the 
devil and his angels. . . . And these shall go away 
into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eter- 
nal life.’ For an explanation of this passage in an- 
swer to those who would try to explain away the 
word eternal, see Chapter VII. 


The apostles also taught that death here ends the 
day of grace. This is clearly stated by St. Paul in 2 — 
Corinthians 6:2, already quoted. In Hebrews 9:27 
we are distinctly told that “it is appointed unto men 
once to die, but after this cometh judgment.” Thus 
death is said to terminate probation and man’s state 
then to determine judgment and destiny. This is also 
unmistakably taught in Hebrews 3:7-19, where the 
fate of the rebellious Hebrews, who were not permitted 
to enter Canaan but died in the wilderness, is held 
up as a warning to those on the way to the heavenly 
Canaan, against “an evil heart of unbelief, in falling 
away from the living God.” Of similar import is He- 
brews 4:7, “He again defineth a certain day, To-day, 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 81 


saying in David, . . . To-day if ye shall hear his 
voice, Harden not your hearts.” And equally clear is 
Hebrews 10:26-81: “For if we sin wilfully after 
that we have received the knowledge of the truth, 
there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a 
certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierce- 
ness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A 
man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without 
compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 
of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be 
judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son 
of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant 
wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath 
done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know 
him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will 
recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his 
people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands 
of the living God.” 


That the apostles were firm in this conviction that 
death ends the day of grace, is shown not only in 
their inspired writings, but also by their otherwise 
inexplicable zeal for the salvation of men. They un- 
questionably regarded their preaching as the only 
chance for the salvation of those whom they addressed. 
So, indeed, all missionary zeal would be practically 
meaningless if there were another probation. 


Nor is the book of Revelation without its testimony 
on this point. The following solemn words should be 
conclusive evidence against any future probation: 
“He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness 
still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: 
and he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: 
and he that is holy, let him be made holy still. Behold, 


82 What after Death? 


I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give to 
each man according as his work is” (Rev. 22:11-12). 
The same is also clearly taught in other passages. 

Moreover, it should be stated that this interpreta- 
tion of these passages is in accord with the consensus 
of almost universal Christendom in_all ages. And no 
one who at all believes in the Spirit’s guidance, should 
attempt lightly to set aside such overwhelming testi- 
mony. 

The state of a person at death, therefore, forever 
determines his future condition, either of blessedness 
or of misery, with the possibility only of growing more 
and more in such condition, as we shall now proceed 
to show. 


3 EVIDENCE FROM THE ELEMENT OF FIXEDNESS IN 
CHARACTER 


There is another element that these exponents of 
the theory of probationism overlook or set aside, and 
that is the development and tendency toward a final 
fixedness of character. 

When a tendency toward evil begins to develop, it 
may be said to increase as by moral gravitation; and 
only by some external force, yea, the very power of 
God, can it be arrested in its course. Who does not 
know the power of habit! When sinful habits are 
developed so as to dominate the will, then the course is 
downward, and that, in some instances, almost with 
uniform acceleration. If only individual acts of evil 
and sin were involved, it would not be so hard for 
the sinner to reform. But it is sinfulness, or a sinful 
character as developed by continual sinning, that en- 
slaves him. Sinfulness breeds acts of sin, and acts 
of sin develop sinfulness. Having surrendered to the 


Will there Be a Probation after Death? 83 


power of evil and closed the heart to the Spirit’s plead- 
ings, the sinner goes on sinning in his downward 
course, his character growing more and more hard- 
‘ened and perverse. This tendency to sin, in the ac- 
cumulating sinful development of character, would 
make even the wisdom and practicability of a second 
probation questionable. May not this be one of the 
elements in the very reason why punishment must be 
eternal? 

Thus future punishment becomes an inherent neces- 
sity from the nature of sin or sinfulness, as well as 
the result of a sentence for sins committed and for the 
rejection of grace. It therefore depends upon what 
the person is or has become, as well as upon what he 
has done or omitted to do. The sinner’s nature has 
thus become such as even to unfit him for associations 
of blessedness. 

Having seen that the theory of probationsm is un- 
tenable as an article of faith, we shall now proceed to 
consider a theory that is held by over half of nominai 
Christendom; namely, the theory of purgationism. 





CHAPTER V 
PURGATIONISM 


IS THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY TENABLE? 


According to one of the cardinal doctrines of the 
Roman Catholic Church (and, in a modified form, of 
the Greek Catholic Church), the souls of those who 
die penitent, or in a state of grace, must nevertheless 
suffer for a time hereafter for the sins for which they 
did not make satisfaction here. 


I AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF THE 
DOCTRINE 


In order to present the doctrine all the more cor- 
rectly and without fear of even the appearance of mis- 
representation, we shall allow Rome to speak for her- 
self. 


1 AS GIVEN IN EARLIER OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 


As the doctrine of purgatory was not attacked dur- 
ing the middle ages by any party or person of great 
influence, and as a somewhat general idea as to its 
essential elements was current, no official statement 
was given by the Roman Catholic Church until the 
year 1439, when such seemed necessary in her ef- 
forts of reunion with the Greek Catholic Church. 

The principal official statements of this doctrine 
were made by the Councils of Ferrara-Florence (1438- 


86 What after Death? 


1439) and Trent (1545-1563). The statement given 
at Florence is as follows: “Likewise if true penitents 
depart in the charity of God, before they have made 
satisfaction for their sins, of commission and omis- 
sion, by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are 
cleansed by purgatorial fires after death, and that they 
may be relieved from their pains, the suffrages of the 
faithful, who are alive, are of advantage to them, that 
is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, and alms, and other 
offices of piety, which are accustomed to be done by 
the faithful for other faithful according to the cus- 
tom of the Church” (Kinane: Purgatory, p. 36). 


Canon XXX, Subjoined to Chapter xvi, Sixth Ses- 
sion (Jan., 1547) of the Council of Trent, is as fol- 
lows: “If any man saith, that, after the grace of jus- 
tification has been received, to every penitent sinner 
the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punish- 
ment is blotted out in such wise that there remains 
not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged 
either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, be- 
fore the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be 
opened [to him]: let him be anathema.” At its Twen- 
ty-fifth and last Session (Dec. 3-4, 1563) the decree of 
Trent to perpetuate the doctrine was as follows: 
‘“‘Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy 
Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient 
traditions of the Fathers, taught in sacred Councils, 
and very recently (Sixth Session, as above) in this 
oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that 
the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages 
of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacri- 
fice of the altar—the holy Synod enjoins on bishops 
that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine 
concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fath- 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 87 


ers and sacred Councils, be believed, maintained, 
taught, and everywhere proclaimed by the faithful of 
Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle ques- 
tions, and which tend not to edification, and from 
which for the most part there is no increase of piety, 
be excluded from popular discourses before the un- 
educated multitude. In like manner, such things as 
are uncertain, or which labor under an appearance 
of error, let them not allow to be made public and 
treated of.” 


Such were the statement of Florence and the canon 
and decree of Trent concerning purgatory, but the de- 
tails of the doctrine were not clearly or fully stated 
or defined by these great Councils. According to the 
decree of Trent, what was “transmitted by the holy 
Fathers and sacred Councils” was to ‘be believed, 
maintained, taught, and everywhere proclaimed by the 
faithful of Christ,” as that doctrine. And as many 
details in the writings of certain earlier theologians 
had been thus transmitted, there was a general un- 
derstanding in the Church as to the chief elements of 
this doctrine, which, therefore, constituted the ac- 
cepted teaching on the subject. But “the more dif- 
ficult and subtle questions” and ‘‘such things as are 
uncertain, or which labor under an appearance of er- 
ror,” were judiciously to be avoided. 

The fresh demands of later generations for more 
definite statements were, however, met from time to 
time. And the fullest, and generally considered the 
best, statement of this doctrine was made by Bellar- 
mine (d. 1621) in his work entitled De Purgatorio. 
In this book the author, from a strictly Roman Cath- 
olic standpoint, enters upon a very elaborate defense 
of the doctrine by citations from the Fathers, the de- 


88 What after Death? 


crees of the councils, and some from the Scriptures, 
and by appealing to general tradition and reason in 
further proof of his contentions. He even localizes 
purgatory, as follows: “Theologians are almost 
unanimous in teaching that Purgatory, at least the 
ordinary place of expiation, is situated in the interior 
of the earth’ (Kinane: Purgatory, p. 47). He also 
writes, “There is no doubt that the pains of Purgatory 
are not limited to ten or twenty years, and that they 
last in some cases for centuries” (Ibid., p. 65). 


2 AS GIVEN IN LATER APPROVED WORKS 


We shall now proceed to give a few somewhat re- 
cent statements on this subject. The Catechism of 
Perseverance gives this definition: “Purgatory is a 
place or state of being in which the souls of the just, 
who have departed this life without fully satisfying 
the divine justice for their sins, are finally purified 
before being admitted into heaven. . . . We are to 
believe: Ist, that there is such a place; 2d, that souls 
suffer there; 3d, that the holy sacrifice of the mass, 
the prayers and good works of the living, will help 
them” (p. 176). 

Another definition is as follows: ‘Purgatory is a 
place where the souls of those must suffer for a time, 
who, though dying without grave sin on their souls, 
have not done complete penance for their offenses 
against God. . . . Theholy souls suffer in purgatory 
to expiate either their venial sins, or those mortal sins, 
which, though absolved, have not been completely 
atoned for’ (Spirago-Clarke: The Catechism Ex- 
plained, p. 264). 

A still fuller definition is the following: ‘Those 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 89 


who depart this life in a state of grace are not always 
fit to enter at once into the Beatific Vision. They may 
be burdened with venial sin; or, though entirely free 
from any kind of sin; they may still have not fully 
paid the debt of temporal punishment due for their 
forgiven sins. Such souls must be cleansed from their 
sins, or must undergo this temporal punishment. The 
abode or condition in which this takes place, is what 
is meant by Purgatory. It is therefore a sort of mid- 
dle state between Heaven and Hell; but the souls who 
are there are really saved, and will infallibly enter 
Heaven as soon as they are fitted for that happy con- 
summation. They can no longer merit or sin; they 
cannot properly satisfy God by meriting—they can 
only make some sort of satisfaction by suffering. On 
the other hand, the faithful who are still on earth can 
help them by their prayers and good works, and for 
this purpose nothing is so efficacious as the Mass” 
(Wilhelm and Scannell: Manual of Catholic Theology, 
TOlanld. 8D: .O0))-. 


In his popular work, specially addressed to non- 
Catholics and often effectively used among them, Car- 
dinal Gibbons says: ‘“‘The Catholic Church teaches 
that, besides a place of eternal torments for the wicked 
and of everlasting rest for the righteous, there exists 
in the next life a middle state of temporal punishment, 
allotted for those who have not satisfied the justice of 
God for sins already forgiven. She also teaches us 
that, although the souls consigned to this intermediate 
state, commonly called purgatory, cannot help them- 
selves, they may be aided by the suffrages of the faith- 
ful on earth” (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 247). 

We shall add one more definition, and that a very 
recent one: “Purgatory .. . in accordance with 


90 What after Death? 


Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal 
punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s 
grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have 
not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgres- 
sions” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XII, p. 575). 
And after referring the reader to several passages 
in the decisions of Trent, this article proceeds, ‘‘Fur- 
ther than this the definitions of the Church do not go, 
but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen 
must be consulted to explain the teachings of the coun- 
cils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of 
the Faithful’ (Ibid.). 

Such is the doctrine of purgatory as held by the 
Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages, as well as 
in the twentieth century, nor has the doctrine under- 
gone any essential changes since its first promulgation. 
How and when, then, did this doctrine originate and 
develop into its present form? As an understanding 
of its origin and development enables us better to es- 
timate Rome’s defense of this doctrine and throws 
light upon, and adds weight to, our answer to it, we 
shall give an outline of its history. 


I BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 


As a non-Christian theory the idea of a purgatory 
antedates the Christian era. The heathen people of 
Central Asia believed in some such fire of purgation 
long before the birth of Christ. So the Jews, in their 
period of degeneracy between the two Testaments, ap- 
parently entertained such an idea, as seems to be im- 
plied in 2 Maccabees 12:40, etc. Among the Greeks, 
Plato (427-347 B. C.) believed in some purgatorial 
process in Lake Acherusia, after undergoing which the 
soul might rise again to the upper air. 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 91 


As an ecclesiastical doctrine its germs appeared 
early in the history of the Church, and these were 
apparently suggested by heathen and Jewish concep- 
tions. Tertullian (fl. 200) already implied some such 
intermediate place or state in his contention that the 
living should pray and make sacrificial oblations for 
the dead. Clement of Alexandria (fl. 200) speaks of 
some spiritual fire, at least in this world. Origen 
(d. 254) went a step farther in teaching that, 
while this purifying fire was indeed spiritual, all 
without exception must pass through it. That the 
speculative belief in some such fire of purification 
beyond the grave was held by many already in the 
fourth century, may be inferred from various state- 
ments or exhortations about prayers, etc., for the dead, 
in the writings of Eusebius (d. 340), Cyril of Jerusa- 
lem (d. 386), Ambrose (d. 397), and several other 
Fathers. The great Augustine (d. 480), following in 
the footsteps of his predecessors, also considered such 
purgatorial fire (ignis purgatorius) not improbable as 
following an earthly ignis tribulationis, and thought 
its reality might be implied in such passages as Mat- 
thew 12:31-32 and 1 Corinthians 3:13-15. In these 
early speculations, however, it was only a spiritual 
burning that was meant, without the gross material 
ideas of a later period. 

The doctrine of purgatory as a tenet of the Western 
Church was not developed until the time of Gregory 
the Great (d. 604). Then during the next six centu- 
ries very few elements were added to, or but little light 
was thrown upon, this doctrine. In the speculative 
teachings of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Bonaventura 
(d. 1274), Gerson (d. 1429), and others of their age, 
the doctrine was more clearly defined and such details 


92 What after Death? 


as the alleged materiality of its fire were definitely 
taught. Then at the Council of Ferrara-Florence 
(1438-1439) it was officially but only partially stated 
or restated, in its fruitless attempt to unite the East- 
ern and Western Churches. And this statement was in 
part made the basis of the action of the Council of 
Trent (1545-1563), where this doctrine, tacitly accept- 
ed, was endorsed and ordered to be promulgated. Its 
fullest development, however, as already noted, was 
reached in Bellarmine’s De Purgatorio, which is the 
chief fountain and inspiration for the many later de- 
fenses of this doctrine. 

Such in brief is the history of this doctrine, showing 
that its ultimate source is traceable to heathenism and 
degenerate Judaism, and that its development, which 
was a gradual one, was the result of philosophico- 
theological speculations, until it became a universal 
tradition and the accepted doctrine of the Roman 
Catholic Church. 


III ROME’S DIRECT PROOFS FOR THE DOC- 
TRINE AND OUR ANSWER 


The doctrine of purgatory is so essential to the Ro- 
man theological and ecclesiastical system, and it is so 
closely related to and bound up with other associated 
doctrines, that it has called forth many a defense from 
the time of the Reformation, when it was so mightily 
attacked by Luther and other Reformers, even to our 
own day. And Rome’s arguments in defense of the 
doctrine have always been virtually the same. 

The chief proofs are very briefly stated in the words 
of the Roman Catechism of Perseverance, pages 178- 
179: “We have many proofs of the existence of pur- 
gatory. The first is drawn from the Old Testament. 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 93 


It is written that Judas Machabeus sent to Jerusalem 
a sum of money to have prayers said for the souls of 
those who had fallen in battle, that they might be de- 
livered from their sins. For, adds the Scripture, zt is 
a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead. 

: The second proof of purgatory is taken from 
the New Testament. Our Lord says in the gospel, He 
that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be 
forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to 
come. There are, therefore, sins forgiven in the next 
world, in a place which is neither heaven nor hell, and 
which we call purgatory. . . The third proof of 
purgatory is the tradition of the Catholic Church. 
From the time of the apostles the Church has not 
ceased to pray and to offer up the holy sacrifice for de- 
ceased children. Tertullian, St. Justin, St. Augustine, 
and all the other fathers of the Church, testify to this 
usage, and assure us that it was derived from the apos- 
tles, and, consequently, from our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The fourth proof of purgatory is the tradition 
of the ancient sects separated from the Church. These 
sects, spread throughout the East, still preserve the 
custom of praying for the dead. They have not bor- 
rowed it from the Church since their separation; they 
received it, therefore, from the apostles, and conse- 
quently from our Lord. . . . The fifth proof of pur- 
gatory is the tradition of the pagans themselves. We 
see in their history that they offered sacrifices for the 
dead, and that they prayed for them. This usage is 
found even among savage nations.” 

It is seen that these so-called proofs are simply as- 
sertions. They thus constitute really no proof, but are 
only so many assumptions. Let the reader very care- 
fully note that Rome’s method of proof is mainly to 


94 What after Death? 


appeal to herself, either in tradition or in her mis- 
interpretation and misapplication of certain Scripture 
passages, for the enforcing of her theories, together 
with such theories and practices of schismatics and 
heathen as have been similar to her own. She is thus 
trying to weigh herself in her doctrines while holding 
her own scale, instead of trying to weigh herself while 
resting that scale upon the solid rock of Holy Scrip- 
ture. Then, too, her supposed proofs from her own 
traditions and those of the ancient sects, that the doc- 
trine of purgatory and its associated doctrines are 
traceable to the apostles, are statements that are his- 
torically untrue. And in citing heathen tradition and 
practices in proof of her claims, Rome is not helping, 
but greatly hindering, her cause, as some of her theo- 
ries and practices are only too easily traceable to 
heathen or non-Christian sources. But perhaps more 
of this later. 


Moreover, these statements or assumptions in proof 
of purgatory, like all the rest of Rome’s teachings, the 
faithful are expected to accept as final upon the author- 
ity of the supposedly infallible Church. It is, however, 
true that in the writings of some of Rome’s apologists 
an attempt is made to defend these statements in proof 
of this doctrine; but it is at best only an attempt, as 
we shall see. 

Cardinal Gibbons somewhat at length defends this 
doctrine by a development of the proofs generally ad- 
duced (Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 247 sq.). And his 
attempted proofs and explanations may seem quite 
plausible to the faithful of his own communion, who 
have been taught implicitly to accept the teachings of 
their Church, without examining them in the light of 
Holy Scripture. They may even deceive some unwary 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 95 


Protestants, especially those who are driven about by 
every wind of doctrine. But to the unbiassed investi- 
gator of truth, the Cardinal’s arguments utterly fail 
to bring conviction. Indeed, in his attempted proofs 
of the existence of purgatory it is really not the doc- 
trine of purgatory that he is seen laboring to establish, 
but the equally unscriptural doctrine of prayers for the 
dead as indirectly implying or necessitating a purga- 
tory. Thus, as an argument for purgatory, he con- 
tends that the doctrine of prayers for the dead is 
“plainly contained in the Old Testament” (Jbid. p. 248). 
This is the first proof given in the Catechism of Perse- 
verance, cited above. But this so-called Old Testament 
proof is not based upon the Old Testament at all, but 
upon a passage in one of the non-canonical or apocry- 
phal books; namely, 2 Maccabees (12:43-46). 

The Cardinal’s contention that the doctrine is 
taught, or at least “insinuated” in the New Testament, 
is, of course, based chiefly upon Matthew 12:32, “‘Who- 
soever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it 
shall be forgiven him: but whosoever shall speak 
against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.” 
This is the second proof given in the Catechism of Per- 
severance. This passage, however, is plainly altogeth- 
er foreign to the question, nor is its interpretation by 
the Roman Church at all tenable in the light of many 
other passages, as we have seen under Probationism. 
Moreover, even at her own interpretation, it would be 
out of harmony with Rome’s teaching concerning pur- 
gatory. The Roman Church holds that the temporal 
punishment in purgatory is primarily for sins forgiven 
in this life but for which full satisfaction has not been 
made. This would not fit into her interpretation of 


96 What after Death? 


this passage, as referring to a possible forgiveness 
hereafter. This passage has thus no weight as an ar- 
gument in proof of the existence of a purgatory, which 
not only is not taught elsewhere in Scripture, but 
which is even contrary to the whole tenor of its teach- 
ing. 

In this connection we shall quote another Roman 
Catholic authority upon Matthew 12:32. After citing 
this passage to prove the existence of purgatory, Kin- 
ane says: “This text is a strong proof in favor of pur- 
gatory. Sin cannot enter Heaven; therefore there is 
no forgiveness there. Out of hell there is no pardon 
or redemption. Therefore there must be a third place 
called Purgatory, where sins—we mean venial sins— 
and the punishment due to mortal sins, are forgiven 
and remitted” (Purgatory, p. 17). 

How absurd for Rome to invent a new division (as 
Rome invents two others for similar reasons) in the 
future world in order to explain away a passage of 
Scripture that does not fit into her theological system! 
Well, it is about as absurd as, conversely, to quote the 
passage of Scripture in proof of an invention of mere 
theological speculation. 

Coming back to Cardinal Gibbon’s arguments, he 
also quotes 1 Corinthians 3:13-15; but this is not at all 
germane to the doctrine he attempts to defend. It 
would seem almost that the Cardinal felt that this pas- 
sage does not apply, for he says, “This interpretation 
is not mine. It is the unanimous voice of the Fathers 
of Christendom” (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 250). In- 
deed, of this passage the Catholic Encyclopaedia very 
apologetically says, ‘While this passage presents con- 
siderable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the 
Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? OT 


of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter 
transgressions will be burnt away, and the souls thus 
purified will be saved” (Vol. XII, pp. 576-577). 


Such is Rome’s reason for using this passage in 
proof of the doctrine of purgatory; namely, because 
many of the Fathers and theologians have so applied 
it. If the fact that, whenever some of the Fathers— 
much as we honor them—or of Rome’s later theolo- 
gians, have applied a passage of Scripture to some doc- 
trine or favorite theory, were elevated to the dignity 
of a canon of interpretation, then all the heresies of 
the Christian centuries could be established and vindi- 
cated. Yet Rome does that very thing when it helps 
Rome’s cause and her traditional doctrines. What 
an exegesis to read into this passage the idea of a fu- 
ture purgatorial fire, such as Rome teaches! Simply 
to call attention to the passage with Rome’s misinter- 
pretation, is sufficient to show such exegesis to be well 
nigh ridiculous. 

The Cardinal, as a further argument for purgatory, 
then proceeds to defend the doctrine of prayers for 
the dead by quotations from the Church Fathers, cit- 
ing Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose and oth- 
ers (Faith of our Fathers, pp. 251 sq.). This is an 
elaboration of the third proof given in the Catechism 
of Perseverance. But the Cardinal’s quotations from 
these men, however good and well-meaning, instead of 
establishing this doctrine which is so in conflict with 
Scripture, only prove how much these men were influ- 
enced in some of their ideas by certain tenets of heath- 
enism out of which they had risen, and by certain 
Jewish beliefs in the period of spiritual apostasy and 
decline. 

And what is true of the Cardinal’s argument for 


98 What after Death? 


purgatory from the Fathers of the Church, is equally 
true of his argument from the Liturgies of the Church 
(Ibid. pp. 255 sq.). The fact that the Roman Liturgies 
contain certain prayers for the dead, shows that, in so 
far at least, these originated not from Scripture, but 
from tradition, or from heathenism and degenerate 
Judaism. Moreover, to call some of these Liturgies 
apostolic, as Rome does, under the pretense that one 
of them was supposedly compiled by St. James, anoth- 
er by St. Peter, etc., is so utterly unhistoric as hardly 
to need any proof to the contrary. It is well known 
(and this Rome’s historians must acknowledge) that 
the origin of these Liturgies is of a much later date 
than that of the apostles. They were developed dur- 
ing the time when many of the errors had already 
crept in, which Rome, in rather placing tradition on a 
level with, or even in the practice above, Scripture, still 
cherishes. 


What then does the Cardinal’s argument from Jew- 
ish practice of praying for the dead amount to in the 
light of what we have said, especially in the light of 
Scripture to the contrary? Is the uninspired apocry- 
phal book of Maccabees, not to speak of other sources, 
to be exalted above the genuine and authentic books 
of the Bible, especially those of the New Testament, 
so thoroughly proved to be inspired and therefore can- 
onical? Shall the inspired Word of God be judged or 
weighed by Roman tradition and Jewish practice, or 
shall Jewish practice and Roman tradition be weighed 
or judged by the unerring Word of God and authentic 
history? Are the teachings of prophets, and of Christ 
and His apostles, to be determined by Roman decrees 
and papal bulls; or, are the truths and errors of papal 
bulls and Roman decrees to be determined by the ex- 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 99 


plicit declarations of inspired prophets or of Christ 
and His blessed apostles, as recorded in the Bible? To 
ask these questions is to answer them! 

To the above supposed proofs we shall add several 
rather speculative arguments. The Catholic Encyclo- 
paedia, Vol. XII, calls attention to the fact that the 
Council of Trent (Session XIV, Canon XI) “reminds 
the faithful that God does not always remit the whole 
punishment due to sin together with the guilt, God re- 
quires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doc- 
trine involves as its necessary consequence a belief 
that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be 
punished in another world, and so not to be cast off 
eternally from God” (p. 575). Again, “For unrepent- 
ed venial faults, for the payment of temporal punish- 
ment due to sin at time of death, the Church has al- 
ways taught the doctrine of purgatory. . . The 
Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact . 
that the temporal penalty due to sin is at times not 
wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic 
position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound 
up with the practice of praying for the dead. For why 
pray for the dead if there be no belief in the power of 
prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are exclud- 
ed from the sight of God? So true is this position that 
prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of 
purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest 
passages of the Fathers who allege reasons for suc- 
couring departed souls” (Jbid., pp. 575-576). And 
again, “In the Sacrament of Penance, guilt of sins is 
removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to 
mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal pun- 
ishment required by Divine justice, and this require- 
ment must be fulfilled either in the present life or in 


100 What after Death? 


the world to come, i. ¢., in purgatory” (Vol. VII, p. 
783). 

Cardinal Wiseman holds that the doctrine of purga- 
tory “follows, as a consequence or corollary from that 

; just treated (satisfactions) ; so much so that 
fe Catholic doctrine of satisfactions would be incom- 
plete without it.” He continues, “The idea that God 
requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, would not 
go to its furthest and necessary consequence, if we did 
not believe that the sinner may be so punished in an- 
other world, as not to be wholly and eternally cast 
away from God” (Lectures, p. 881). 

Another alleged proof for its existence is given thus: 
“The existence of Purgatory is also a consequence of 
two recognized theological principles. The first of 
these is the distinction between mortal and venial sin; 
the other is the distinction between the guilt of mortal 
sin and the temporal punishment due even after the 
guilt has been forgiven. As we have already pointed 
out at the beginning of this section, persons dying with 
venial sin on their souls, or who have not fully paid 
their debt of temporal punishment, cannot at once en- 
ter Heaven, and yet do not deserve Hell. Indeed it is 
difficult to reconcile the holiness and mercy and justice 
of God without maintaining a place of purgation after 
death” (Wilhelm and Scannell: Manual of Catholic 
Theology, Vol. II, p. 559). 

The above are, however, only speculative arguments 
and in their final analysis amount to nothing but mere 
assumptions. Where is Rome’s authority for saying 
that “God does not always remit the whole punishment 
due to sin together with the guilt,’ and that He, there- 
fore, “requires satisfaction,” etc.? Where is Rome’s 
authority for saying that, after the guilt of sin is re- 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 101 


moved, ‘‘there still remains the temporal punishment 
required by divine justice and this requirement must 
be fulfilled either in the present life or in purgatory’’? 
Or where is her authority for holding that the remov- 
ing of the guilt of sin removes only the eternal pun- 
ishment due to mortal sin? Indeed, whence the arbi- 
trary distinction between venial and mortal sins? A 
sample of her only answer can be seen in this inadvert- 
ent concession, ‘““‘The Catholic doctrine of purgatory 
supposes the fact . . . that the temporal penalty 
due to sin is at times not wholly paid in this life.” 


In several statements quoted above the practice of 
praying for the dead is given as a proof of the exist- 
ence of purgatory. The same is done by Wilhelm and 
Scannell in the following words: “Before proceeding 
to the proof of the doctrine defined by the Council, we 
observe that the two points hang very much together ; 
prayer for the dead implying that the souls could ben- 
efit thereby, and so implying the existence of a middle 
and temporary state’ (Manual of Catholic Theology, 
Vol. II, 554). Many other writers might be cited as 
doing the same. In other places the doctrine of the 
existence of purgatory is just as emphatically cited in 
proof of the doctrine of prayers for the dead. This is 
done by Wiseman in his Lectures, pages 382-383, as 
well as by other writers. 

This, truly, is reasoning in a circle; and, what is 
worse, at whatever point in the circle the reasoning is 
regarded as beginning, it must necessarily begin with 
an assumption, or an unproved, and indeed an easily 
disproved, premise. Thus Rome’s doctrinal system, in 
its last analysis, must be regarded as self-interpreting, 
so that one dogma is interpreted by another, which in 
turn is interpreted by that dogma; or, that its various 


102 What after Death? 


elements must be interpreted by a certain doctrinal 
analogy that receives its standard from the supposedly 
infallible Church or her equally infallible head! At 
that, we suppose, we shall have to leave this argument 
for a while and let the reader meanwhile judge of that 
infallibility in the light of the contradictory history 
of the Roman Catholic Church with her fallible and 
erring Councils and popes. With the decision on this 
point of infallibility, her speculative unscriptural doc- 
trines must, therefore, necessarily fall. 

Among other arguments in defense of the doctrine 
of purgatory, we note the following: “The doctrine of 
purgatory follows as a postulate of reason from other 
teachings which Christians hold as undoubtedly true. 
Thus it is true that nothing imperfect shall enter heav- 
en” (Martin: Catholic Religion, p. 282). For this last 
statement the passage of Scripture cited is Revelation 
21:27: “And there shall in no wise enter into it any- 
thing unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and 
a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book 
of life.” 

It is indeed true that nothing imperfect can enter 
heaven; but where in this passage is the proof for the 
doctrine of Purgatory—to purge away this imperfec- 
tion—especially when read in the light of the atoning 
merits of Jesus Christ? The natural man, or the un- 
pardoned sinner, can indeed not of himself, or upon 
his own merits, enter heaven. All men are not only 
imperfect, but stnners, before God (1 John 1:8, 10). 
But by the grace of God, being penitent, a person can 
be absolved from all his sins. And thus, after the 
blood of Jesus Christ has cleansed him from all sin (1 
John 1:7, 9), he is no longer imperfect or sinful, and 
can therefore by Christ’s grace enter heaven, and does 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 1038 


so without any such mechanical process of purification 
as has existence only in the subtle scheme of Rome’s 
tyrannizing and subjugating theological system. What 
pope or ecclesiastical hierarchy can close the gates of 
heaven’s blessedness to one to whom Christ’s obedience 
and righteousness have been imputed (Rom. 5:18-19; 
et al.)! Here also it is emphatically true that what- 
soever God in Christ has cleansed no man should call 
common or unclean (Acts 10:15; 11:9), a fact which 
even the inspired Peter had to learn. 

As a further argument in defense of purgatory, 
Martin says: ‘The doctrine of purgatory commends 
itself to the Christian reason and the human heart. It 
gives consolation to the mourner and encouragement to 
the repentant sinner. It affords occasion of exercising 
charity to the departed, of repairing the ingratitude 
of thoughtless days, of strengthening the bond of love 
that even death cannot break” (Catholic Religion, p. 
288). 

In these words of Martin the reader can readily dis- 
cern the veiled but real reasons for the establishment 
of this dogma for the spiritual enslavement of Rome’s 
mighty hosts. Let him carefully weigh every sentence 
in connection with what is said here, and elsewhere, on 
this subject. Martin’s words may, to the unsuspecting 
reader, appeal as rhetoric, but not as logic. Any relig- 
ious doctrine, whatsoever it may be, that does not rest 
for its foundation upon the inspired writers of Holy 
Scripture, is not only unsafe, but absolutely untenable, 
as an article of faith, however it may “commend itself 
to the Christian reason and the human heart,” and do 
all the rest claimed for it by priest, cardinal, ecclesi- 
astical Council, or even the ex cathedra ipse dixits of 
a pope. 


104 What after Death? 


Thus the departed are said to suffer temporal pun- 
ishment ‘for sins already forgiven, which is not only 
contrary to the Gospel, but also a plain contradiction. 
Upon what grounds could punishment be demanded for 
a sin that has already been forgiven? To this Rome 
answers by using her scholastic invention of the dis- 
tinction in sin between the guilt and the punishment 
(Decrees of Trent, especially emphasized in Darras’ 
General History of the Church, p. 46). Of course, this 
is a necessary distinction to bolster up the doctrine of 
purgatory, and, in so far, goes beyond the apostles of 
our Lord; for they knew nothing about it, as they knew 
nothing about the ecclesiastical invention of purgatory, 
indulgences, prayers for the dead, and other related 
doctrines of later invention! 

Martin’s language at another place, in speaking of 
“the souls of the just, who have departed this life with- 
out fully satisfying the divine justice for their sins,” 
is, to say the least, self-contradictory. How absurd to 
say that the just must yet satisfy divine justice! and 
yet, so does blind adherence to the arrogant teachings 
of Rome and her almost blasphemous claims make oth- 
erwise good and well-meaning men play fast and loose 
with both truth and language. 

In passing, we should here state another argument 
that is sometimes advanced in defense of the doctrine 
of purgatory. This we shall give in the words of Kin- 
ane, as follows: “It is of the highest importance to 
bear in mind that our Blessed Lord invariably correct- 
ed in the gospel any false doctrine or errors that crept 
in among the Jews. Now it is evident from the Second 
Book of Machabees, . . . that the Jews believed 
in a middle state. Our Divine Lord did not condemn 
it as He would have done, were it false doctrine. On 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 105 


the other hand he confirmed it” (Purgatory, p. 20). It 
is indeed true that our Lord did correct errors in Jew- 
ish belief; but this He generally did by His own posi- 
tive teachings, which were to serve as such correction, 
rather than by negative attacks upon false beliefs. And 
this is very manifestly true as to the apparent Jewish 
belief in an intermediate state of punishment, as is 
seen in many passages, such as Luke 16:19-31. 

From the above it is apparent that the doctrine of 
purgatory, not at present to speak of that of prayers 
for the dead and other related doctrines, is not based 
upon the Word of God but upon the words and opin- 
ions of men; and the truly initiated Roman Catholic 
must know, and should acknowledge, this. Indeed, in 
the very climax of Cardinal Gibbon’s argument, after 
citing Revelation 21:27, he virtually does acknowledge 
this, in saying, ‘‘Therefore, your common sense de- 
mands a middle place of expiation for the purgation 
of the soul before it is worthy of enjoying the compan- 
ionship of God and His saints” (Faith of Our Fathers, 
p. 261). And very plainly does Cardinal Wiseman 
acknowledge that the doctrine of purgatory is not 
taught in the Bible, as witness the following words: 
“T have more than once commented on the incorrect- 
ness of that method of arguing, which demands that 
we prove every one of our doctrines individually from 
the Scriptures. I occupied myself . . . in demon- 
strating the Catholic principle of faith, that the Church 
of Christ was instituted by Him the depository of His 
truths, and that, although many were recorded in His 
Word, still many were committed to traditional keep- 
ing, and that Christ Himself has faithfully promised 
to teach in His Church, and has thus secured her from 
error. It is on this authority that the Catholic grounds 


106 What after Death? 


his belief in the doctrine of Purgatory: yet, not so but 
that its principle is laid down, indirectly at least, in the 
word of God” (Lectures, p. 382). For Wiseman’s fuller 
discussion on the written and unwritten Word of 
God, see his Lectures, pages 60 ff. and 304 ff. Wil- 
helm and Scannell make practically the same admission 
in the following words: “The strongest proof of the 
existence of Purgatory is undoubtedly to be found in 
tradition and the general principles of theology; but 
Holy Scripture is not wanting in indications that there 
is a place of purgation after death” (Manual of Catho- 
lic Theology, Vol. II, p. 554). And the following con- 
cession is made by another authority: “It is by Tradi- 
tion that we know that our Lord instituted seven sacra- 
ments. It is by Tradition that we are taught that 
there is a purgatory. . . If therefore there is any 
doctrine of the Church that we do not find in Holy 
Scripture, we shall find it in the stream of Tradition, 
and shall be able to trace it up to the first ages of 
Christianity. 'The chief sources of Tradition are the 
writings of the Fathers, the decrees of Councils, and 
the creeds and prayers of the Church” (Spirago- 
Clarke: The Catechism Explained, p. 88). 

It is therefore seen that Rome tries to establish her 
fanciful doctrine of purgatory by appealing to the 
apocryphal or uninspired book of 2 Maccabees, which 
has no place in such theological defense; to Matthew 
12:32 and I Corinthians 3:18-15, which are not at all 
germane, as already explained; to the tradition of the 
Catholic Church, which she herself accumulated or in- 
vented during her paganized period of degeneracy, 
often only to bolster up a pet theory or doctrine that 
was considered necessary to complete her system of 
spiritual domination; and to the tradition of even the 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 107 


pagans themselves, which she does not even hesitate to 
offer as proof for a doctrine which is not only not 
taught in Scripture, but which is even in direct conflict 
with its whole teaching of a full atonement in Christ 
and free salvation. 


IV ROME’S ARGUMENTS FROM HER ASSOCI- 
ATED DOCTRINES EQUALLY GROUNDLESS 


In order still better to understand this doctrine and 
the groundlessness of its defense, it must be consid- 
ered somewhat more at length in its relation to, and 
development with, some other doctrines that have aris- 
en during the centuries as partly at once the cause of 
its origin and its offspring. These doctrines or dogmas 
are directly involved in that of purgatory; and without 
these that of purgatory could not really be intelligently 
considered, because without them it would to a large 
extent be meaningless. We shall, therefore, briefly 
consider some of these related doctrines to show that 
they are themselves just as groundless as is that of 
purgatory, and therefore totally without weight or 
value as even indirect evidence in its defense. 


1 HUMAN SATISFACTIONS, PENANCE, GOOD WORKS, 
WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION 


For the sake of convenience, and because of their 
close relation, we shall treat the above together. 

For the shortening of the punishment in purgatory 
the associated doctrine of human satisfactions was de- 
veloped. Thus, though a person be forgiven the guilt 
of his sins, it is held that it is still necessary for him 
to make due satisfaction for the sins committed. 

Cardinal Wiseman says: “We believe that upon this 


108 What a fler Death? 


forgiveness of sins, that is, after the remission of that 
eternal debt, which God in His justice awards to trans- 
gressions against His law, He has been pleased to re- 
serve a certain degree of inferior or temporary pun- 
ishment, appropriate to the guilt which had been in- 
curred: and it is on this part of the punishment alone, 
that according to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction 
can be made to God. . . . But, after all, the whole 
of the question necessarily rests on this consideration. 
Is it God’s ordinance, that when in a state of grace, He 
still reserves the infliction of some degree of punish- 
ment for his transgressions? We say, that undoubted- 
ly it is’ (Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of 
the Catholic Church, pp. 870-371). He then attempts 
to prove this contention by an appeal to the feelings 
or opinions of people as to the matter, and by citing 
certain cases of the infliction of such temporal earthly 
punishment in the Bible, as that of David (2 Kings 
12:14), ete. But the cases cited are not at all applic- 
able, as they are meant to illustrate God’s dealing with 
men in this world of probation, not in the future world 
of fixedness in state and destiny (Chapter IV). 


The above writer thus further summarizes the doc- 
trine concerning satisfactions: “1. That God, after 
the remission of sin, retains a lesser chastisement in 
His power, to be inflicted on the sinner. 2. That peni- 
tential works, fasting, alms-deeds, contrite weeping, 
and fervent prayer, have the power of averting this 
punishment. 3. That this scheme of God’s justice was 
not a part of the imperfect law, but the unvarying or- 
dinance of His dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic 
ritual, and simply confirmed by Christ in the gospel. 
4, That it consequently becomes a part of all true re- 
pentance to try to satisfy this divine justice, by the 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 109 


voluntary assumption of such penitential works, as 
His revealed truth assures us have efficacy before Him”’ 
(Ibid., p. 8376). Again he says, “that God reserves 
some temporal chastisement for sin, after its guilt and 
eternal punishment have been remitted; and that by 
the voluntary performance of expiatory works, we may 
disarm the anger of God, and mitigate the inflictions 
which His justice had prepared” (Jbid., p. 399). 

Speaking of penance, in connection with satisfac- 
tions, Wiseman declares, ‘“‘While these penitential ob- 
servances were considered of the greatest value and 
importance, the Church reserved to itself the right of 
mitigation under various circumstances” (Jbid., p. 
406). He then proceeds to state these alleged circum- 
stances. 

It is thus taught that, “part of the sacrament of pen- 
ance is satisfaction,” and that ‘‘after the remission of 
the eternal punishment, there ordinarily remains a 
temporal punishment to be undergone, and penance is 
a part of it” (Catechism of Perseverance, p. 222). The 
fruits or effects of the sacrament of penance are, in the 
same connection, said to be, ‘‘Ist, it remits all the sins 
committed after baptism; 2d, it remits the eternal pun- 
ishment due to sin and sometimes even the temporal 
punishment; 3d, it restores the merits of good works” 
(Ibid.). 

For Rome’s official statement as to the necessity and 
fruit of satisfactions and penance, see Chapter VIII, 
Fourth Session of the Council of Trent. 

According to this theory, therefore, God’s forgive- 
ness consists in remitting only the penalty of eternal 
death due to so-called mortal sin, together with its 
guilt, but some human satisfaction must yet be made 
for man’s transgressions, especially for so-called ven- 


110 What after Death? 


ial sins, for the satisfying of divine justice. And if 
this is not made here in the form of various outward 
satisfactions, by penance, etc., it must be made here- 
after. 7 


According to this, therefore, the merits of Christ, 
instead of affording full satisfaction, may be said only 
to commute the otherwise eternal punishment into a 
temporal one; and to these merits of Christ must, 
therefore, be added those of man to make satisfaction 
complete. The merits of Christ are indeed held to be 
sufficient to atone for man’s guilt, but they are said to 
take away the guilt only of original sin. Thus, for the 
guilt of actual sin, it is claimed, satisfaction must be 
made on the part of man. 

Rome further teaches that certain deeds or works of 
man of themselves have saving spiritual merit or value 
before God. And, in order to sustain this theory, it is 
held that, “Whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually 
infuses his virtue into the justified . . . and this 
virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows, 
their good works, . . . Wwemust believe that noth- 
ing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their 
being accounted to have, by these very works which 
have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law 
according to the state of this life, and to have truly 
merited eternal life’ (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, 
Chapter XVI). 

It is further held that many of the saints, in addition 
to being able to do what is directly commanded, or 
what the law prescribes as man’s duty, are able to do 
even more, by performing such works as are left op- 
tional or by living up to certain rules which in them- 
selves are not obligatory, especially such as the observ- 
ing of the three monastic vows of total poverty, abso- 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? it 


lute chastity and implicit obedience. Such super- 
abundant good works are called works of supereroga- 
tion. And by the accumulation of them on the part 
of many saints, it is held that a fund or treasury of 
superabundant merits has been formed, and that this 
fund is at the disposal of the Church through the pow- 
er of the keys supposedly vested in the pope as its vis- 
ible head. Thus Cardinal Wiseman says: “The Church 
holds that, by the communion of Saints, penitential 
works performed by the just, beyond what their own 
sins might exact, are available to other members of 
Christ’s mystical body; that, for instance, the suffer- 
ings of the spotless Mother of God, . . . the auster- 
ities and persecutions of the baptist, . . . the tor- 
tures endured by the numberless martyrs, whose lives 
had been pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rig- 
ours of holy anchorites, . . . all these made conse- 
erated and valid through their union with the merits of 
Christ’s passion, . . . formed a store of meritorious 
blessings, applicable to the satisfaction of other sin- 
ners” (Lectures, p. 400). 

These merits from the works of supererogation, or 
works beyond what are necessary for the saints’ own 
salvation, together with the superabundant merits of 
Christ, are said to become available for the shortening 
of the pains of purgatory for those less forunate in 
good works, chiefly through the Church’s or the pope’s 
power of granting indulgences (Ibid.). Upon this point 
Kinane writes: ‘We must bear in mind that the 
Church has her treasures. She has the infinite merits 
of our Blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ; and the super- 
abundant merits of the blessed Virgin, and the saints. 
The Church dispenses these treasures by holy Indul- 
gences .. . Indulgences remit a part, sometimes the 


112 What after Death? 


whole of the temporal punishment due to sin” (Purga- 
tory, p. 134). 


All the above noted dogmas really blend into one, 
and in effect amount to this; namely, that by meritor- 
ious deeds man is partly the author of his own salva- 
tion. These dogmas ascribe to human deeds a value or 
meritoriousness before God that is not only not sanc- 
tioned, but even repeatedly and emphatically denied in 
the Scriptures. Thus, to speak of good works as hav- 
ing merit before Him, to whom our best is but a 
natural duty, is unscriptural and unwarranted; but to 
speak of works of supererogation, or works above 
what is needful, is absurd. And if so-called good 
works and works of supererogation avail nothing be- 
fore God, what becomes of penance which is supposed 
to imply, or to be involved in, such works? And with 
the dogma of penance that of satisfactions must neces- 
sarily fall. 

Thus the apostle Paul declares to the Ephesians (2: 
8-9), “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; 
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of 
works, that no man should glory.” Again he says, “I 
do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness 
is through the law, then Christ died for naught” (Gal. 
2:21). So then we are saved by grace through faith, 
and in the words of St. Paul, “But if it is by grace, it 
is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace”’ 
(Rom. 11:6). Moreover, Paul’s practical exhortation 
to the Philippians (2:12), “Work out your own salva- 
tion with fear and trembling,” is not at all applicable 
in proof of any such dogma as that of Roman Catholic 
work-righteousness. It is a practical exhortation for 
them to continue, by God’s grace, that life of obedience 
which they had so nobly begun. And, indeed, in the 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 113 


very next verse the apostle plainly says that is is God 
who works in them and, therefore, makes it possible. 


The great Augustine epigrammatically says of good 
works, “We keep all the commandments of God, when 
all is forgiven us that we do not keep.” Indeed, even 
at best we are but unprofitable servants, as the Lord 
Himself says, “When ye shall have done all the things 
that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable ser- 
vants; we have done that which it was our duty to do” 
(Luke 17:10). 


We believe that enough has been said to show that 
these dogmas, which are necessitated by (and equally 
necessitate) that of purgatory to make that dogma 
tolerably plausible or palatable even to Rome’s de- 
votees, are utterly groundless. Therefore, as argu- 
ments for the dogma of purgatory, for whose defense 
they have indeed largely been developed, these dogmas 
are utterly valueless. 


2 INDULGENCES, THE POWER OF THE KEYS, CONFES- 
SION, PAPAL INFALLIBILITY 


These doctrines, or dogmas, are also very closely as- 
sociated with, or involved in, that of purgatory. And 
as they are claimed to constitute additional indirect 
proof for that doctrine, they require consideration at 
this point. Moreover, in establishing their groundless- 
ness, we shall further prove the doctrine of purgatory 
to be untenable as an article of faith. As these doc- 
trines are also very closely related, we shall treat them 
together. 

According to Cardinal Gibbons, defining indulgences, 
“An Indulgence is simply a remission in whole or in 
part, through the superabundant merits of Jesus 
Christ and His saints, of the temporal punishment due 


114 What after Death? 


to God on account of sin, after the guilt and eternal 
punishment have been remitted.” (Faith of Our Fath- 
ers, p. 428). Again, “An Indulgence is called plenary 
or partial, according as it remits the whole or a part of 
the temporal punishment due to sin” (Jbid., p. 481). 
In the words of Deharbe, ‘“‘An Indulgence is a remis- 
sion granted out of the Sacrament of Penance, of that 
temporal punishment which, even after the sin is for- 
given, we have yet to undergo, either here in in Pur- 
gatory” (A Complete Catechism, p. 295). And again, 
the same author says, “With the sin, God always re- 
mits the eternal punishment, but He does not always 
remit the temporal punishment due forit. . . . Itis 
that punishment which we have to suffer either here, 
or in Purgatory” (Ibid., p. 292). Or, in the words of 
another authority, “In indulgences, . . . the Church 
has no reference to the inward guilt or to the weight of 
eternal punishment incurred by sin, but only to the 
temporal chastisement and its necessary expiation. 
When, therefore, an indulgence is said to be a remis- 
sion or forgiveness of sin, the phrase applies only to the 
outward guilt, or that portion of the evil whereof the 
ancient penitential canons took cognizance’ (Wise- 
man: Lectures, p. 412). 

Upon the applying of indulgences to souls in purga- 
tory we shall also have several of Rome’s authorities 
speak for their Church. Deharbe says, “And Indul- 
gences can also be gained for the benefit of the souls in 
Purgatory” (A Complete Catechism, p. 298). Upon 
this point Lepecier makes this statement: “It is a part 
of the Catholic doctrine, to believe that we can apply 
to the souls in Purgatory the Indulgences granted by 
the Church. . . . And as they help us by their 
prayers, so do we help them by our fasts, alms-deeds, 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 115 


the sacrifice of the Mass, and particularly by the appli- 
cation of Indulgences” (Indulgences, pp. 49-50). 
Again, he says, ‘She [the Church] can help them by 
way of suffrage, offering, or impetration; that is, she 
can draw from off her own testimony the merits of 
Christ, and offer them to God praying Him to accept 
these suffrages in their behalf. And in this indirect 
manner, the Church helps the souls of her children that 
are detained in the flames of Purgatory” (Ibid., p. 51). 
And, to quote Deharbe again, “By what means can we 
assist the poor souls in Purgatory? By prayers, alms- 
deeds, and other good works, especially by the Holy 
Sacrifice of the Mass and the application of Indulg- 
ences (A Complete Catechism, p. 151). Of similar im- 
port are the following words: “The faithful on earth 
can help the holy souls in purgatory by good works; 
in particular by prayers, fastings, alms-deeds, by offer- 
ing or being present at Mass, by receiving the sacra- 
ment and gaining indulgences” (Spirago-Clarke: The 
Catechism Explained, p. 266). 

Upon the source of indulgences, in addition to what 
is already stated or implied in the foregoing, the Cate- 
chism of Perseverance says, ‘““The source of indulgences 
are the superabundant merits of our Lord, of the Vir- 
gin Mary and the saints. . . . In order to gain in- 
dulgences, we must Ist, perform the works of prayers 
prescribed by the sovereign pontiff, according to his 
intention” (p. 225). And Lepecier asks and answers 
the following question: “When is it, then, that an In- 
dulgence is granted? . . . Whenadonation or trans- 
fer is made over from the treasury of the Church by 
the qualified Prelate” (Indulgences, p. 38). 

As to the reciprocal blessings which are supposed to 
come to those who secure or offer indulgences, etc., for 


116 What after Death? 


souls in purgatory, Kinane makes the following strik- 
ing statement: “If then during life, for God’s sake and 
God’s glory, we have a merciful charity for the poor 
suffering souls in Purgatory; if we offer for their re- 
lief our Masses, Holy Communion, prayers, alms, and 
indulgences, and leave our own souls to the mercy of 
God, there can’t be a doubt but when our day of suffer- 
ing in Purgatory will come, our merciful, grateful, and 
kind Saviour, Jesus Christ, will inspire holy souls, 
whethe» in Heaven or on earth, to pray for us; or will 
Himself directly, in some mysterious way, shorten the 
time of our imprisonment, and cool the burning flames” 
(Purgatory, p. 185). 


The decree of the Council of Trent concerning indul- 
gences is as follows: “Whereas the power of conferring 
Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and 
she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said 
power delivered unto her of God, the sacred holy Synod 
teaches and enjoins that the use of Indulgences, for the 
Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the 
authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the 
Church; and it condemns with anathema those who 
either assert that they are useless, or who deny that 
there is in the Church the power of granting them” 
(Twenty-fifth Session, Dec. 4, 1563). 

Thus, according to the teachings of Rome, the pope, 
as the Vicar of Christ on earth and the supreme holder 
of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, also holds the 
keys to the treasury of superabundant merits. He is 
declared to have supreme power of dispensing these 
merits, through the proper intermediaries, to whom he 
will, and therefore to those who fulfill the conditions 
of the Church—or the sovereign pontiff’s intention 
(Catechism of Perseverance, p. 225)—for their dis- 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 117 


posal, by having prayers said for the dead, by the 
bloodless sacrifice of the mass, etc. The bishops, more- 
over, have been instructed to see to it that this doctrine 
is everywhere believed and proclaimed. Hence there 
have naturally arisen in the Church of Rome the many 
abuses associated with this doctrine, such as the farm- 
ing or selling of indulgences by men like Tetzel (1516- 
1517), various pilgrimages, etc. 

Such is Rome’s teaching as to indulgences. But, as 
is readily seen, her teaching is a human invention that 
has no foundation either in Scripture or in human 
reason. It is totally in conflict with the very explicit 
teachings of Scripture concerning full and free for- 
giveness because of Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice. 
Thus St. Paul writes, “There is therefore now no con- 
demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 
8:1). As there is thus no temporal punishment to be 
undergone by those who have been forgiven and justi- 
fied, the very ground or reason for so-called indulg- 
ences has no existence. 

Rome’s contention that with forgiveness God “does 
not always remit the temporal punishment due for it’, 
is Simply an arbitrary assertion for which there is no 
foundation whatever. Rome appeals to “‘that portion 
of the evil whereof the ancient penitential canons took 
cognizance.” Then what were those particular ancient 
penitential canons, and by what or whose authority 
did their simply taking cognizance establish what is 
not only not established in Scripture but what is em- 
phatically denied? The absurdity of the whole theory 
of indulgences is so apparent as to be in itself con- 
clusive evidence against it. 

What, then, becomes of the theory of applying in- 
dulgences to souls in a supposed purgatory that has ab- 


118 What after Death? 


solutely no existence in reality? It can surely have no 
evidential value for the existence of such purgatory. 
And as to the source of indulgences, who could elevate 
the deeds of the Virgin Mary and the saints thus to 
become merits before God for distribution to others? 
Against this St. Paul is very emphatic: “Are we better 
than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the 
charge both of Jews and Gentiles, that they are all un- 
der sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, 
notone. . . . There is none that doeth good, no, not 
so much as one” (Rom. 3:9-12). Again, “The scrip- 
ture shut up all things under sin, that the promise by 
faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that be- 
lieve” (Gal. 3:22). See also Job 15:14-16; 25:4-6; 
Ps. 51:5. 

And what shall we say of supposed reciprocal bless- 
ings, of which Kinane writes? Well, it is sufficient to 
say that even Kinane makes these only hypothetical. 
This, therefore, needs no further answer. 

The power to grant indulgences is, of course, said to 
go with the power of the keys. Thus Cardinal Wise- 
man says, ‘‘What then is an indulgence? It is no more 
than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the keys, 
or the judicial authority committed to her, of a por- 
tion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to 
sin” (Lectures, p. 400). In the words of the Catholic 
Encyclopaedia, “The extra-sacramental remission [in- 
dulgence] of the temporal punishment due, in God’s 
justice, to sin that has been forgiven, . . . is grant- 
ed by the Church in the exercise of the power of the 
keys, through the application of the superabundant 
merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just 
and reasonable motive” (Vol. VII, p. 783). 

What a marvelous system of theories and arbitrary 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 119 


assumptions! How did Rome come to know that she 
has this power to remit in whole or in part “the tem- 
poral punishment due to sin’? And whence the 
knowledge of supposed superfluous merits, and all the 
other theories? The answer may not be far to seek. 
These theories having been suggested, Rome found that 
they fitted well into her system. Then, too, they were 
found to be so many added links in the mighty chain 
which she has been almost imperceptibly and well-nigh 
unconsciously forging through the centuries for the 
religious, and even for the civil and material, subjuga- 
tion of the nations. From Rome’s viewpoint that must 
be regarded as reason enough, and her viewpoint is the 
only one, in her estimation, and her dicta must suppos- 
edly be absolute and final. 


But what is Rome’s ground for the dogma of the 
power of the keys and in whom is this power supposed 
to be vested? The Church holds that the power of the 
keys is vested in the pope as the successor of St. 
Peter. Thus one writer expresses it: ‘““The supremacy 
of the pope . . . signifies nothing more than that 
the pope or Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. 
Peter, possesses authority and jurisdiction, in things 
spiritual, over the entire Church, so as to constitute its 
visible head, and the vicegerent of Christ upon earth 

. . We... .. hold the pope to be the source of 
aathhundtaes as all the subordinate rulers in the Church 
are subject to him, and receive directly, or indirectly, 
their jurisdiction from and by him” (Wiseman: Lec- 
tures, pp. 262-263). To this we shall add what another 
authority says upon this point as to this power in the 
priests “Every priest receives at ordination the power 
of the keys. . . . As, however, the exercise of this 
power is an act of judicial authority, it can be per- 


120 What after Death? 


formed only upon such subjects as are assigned to the 
priest. . . . The Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over 
all the world; the parish priests over their parishes” 
(Wilhelm and Scannell: Manual of Catholic Theology, 
Vol. II, pp. 481-482). 

Evidence for this dogma of the papal power of the 
keys is supposed to be found in Matthew 16:19, where 
Christ, addressing Peter, said: “I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever 
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” 
This passage is also pressed into service in defense of 
several of Rome’s associated dogmas, such as those of 
papal infallibility, penance, indulgences. Falsely as- 
suming the pope to be the successor of St. Peter, they 
teach that therefore the supreme power of forgiveness, 
etc., is vested in every succeeding pope. 

This is one of Rome’s most dangerous traditional 
premises, and is fundamental to her whole system, and 
issues in a progeny of errors and abuses that would 
otherwise be inconceivable. Assuming or accepting 
this figment of tradition—that St. Peter was the first 
pope of Rome—as though it were historic fact; togeth- 
er with the theory that to him, and to him alone, and 
therefore to all his papal successors, was given the 
supreme power of the keys; and that the pope is infall- 
ible as the mouthpiece of Christ in all matters per- 
taining to the faith: there is no limit to the possibility 
of Rome’s arrogance in subjecting the consciences of 
the nations. This ultimate premise is fundamental to 
numerous subordinate premises, which are therefore 
equally erroneous, and the conclusions must necessar- 
ily be false. Thus have arisen the unscriptural doc- 
trines of confession, penance, indulgences, prayers for 
the dead, etc., upon the mere ipse dixvits of this suppos- 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 121 


edly infallible pertender and of the Councils as his 
equally infallible instruments or mouthpieces. But we 
must not anticipate our discussion on infallibility, ex- 
cept as it is necessary in our immediate discussion on 
the power of the keys. 

That James the brother of the Lord presided over 
the apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, 19, 
etc.) ; that Peter was never bishop or overseer at 
Rome; that the bishops or overseers at Rome had, and 
exercised, no more authority than did those at Jerusa- 
lem, Antioch, Alexandria, and other cities, until the 
time of Constantine (beginning of fourth century) ; 
that from that time on the bishop of Rome gradually 
arrogated to himself, and received, more and more 
authority till his supremacy was complete and abso- 
lute; that the succeeding and supposedly infallible 
popes, and pretended holders of the power of the keys, 
and their equally infallible Councils, repeatedly con- 
tradicted one another and thus nullified all claims to 
infallibility, etc.; that many of their dicta and decrees 
are plainly contrary to Scripture,—these are incontro- 
vertible facts of history that need no further proof 
here. 

Thus Rome’s fundamental premises are utterly 
false; and, therefore, her conclusions based upon them 
must be false; and with them the whole system of her 
hierarchical pretensions must necessarily fall. In the 
light of these facts, what then becomes of her theory of 
purgatory which is certainly nowhere taught in Scrip- 
ture, but whose supposed existence is deduced from 
such traditional and totally unfounded premises. 

The fact is often overlooked that only a few verses 
after the one cited in proof of Peter’s primacy and con- 
sequent papal power of the keys (Matt. 16:18-19), 


122 What after Death? 


when Peter tried to rebuke his Lord, Christ says to 
him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou are a stumbling- 
block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, 
but the things of men” (Matt. 16:23). Then, too, in 
Matthew 18:18, Christ plainly delegates whatever au- 
thority is implied in these words, to all the disciples: 
“Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what 
things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven.” So also, when Christ met the ten disciples 
on the night of His resurrection, He spoke similar 
words to the assembled body: “Whose soever sins ye 
forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever 
sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). 


Some of Rome’s apologists indeed try to avoid this 
dilemma by declaring that this power of the keys is 
vested in the.ordained priesthood. But we clearly un- 
derstand this evasion of the real issue. A priesthood 
without the authority of the pope, according to Rome’s 
own pronounced contention, is an impossibility. All 
its authority, and therefore that of the keys, comes 
through the intermediary officials, from the pope, by 
virtue of his alleged apostolic succession (Wiseman: 
Lectures, pp. 262-263). All this boasted ecclesiastical 
_ authority, however regarded, ultimately hangs upon 

the unhistoric assumed figment of the Petrine primacy 
and episcopate and papal apostolic succession. 


There is, however, a certain delegated authority or 
power involved in Christ’s words to St. Peter and the 
rest of the apostles; but this power belongs to the 
Church as the assembly of believers—the universal 
priesthood—as is very evident from the last two cita- 
tions (Matt. 18:18; John 20:23), and as is also noted 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 123 


in what we have said about Peter with reference to the 
other (Matt. 16:18-19). This legitimate authority or 
power is, indeed, too often ignored by a radical Pro- 
testantism. But this power is conditioned upon the 
believer’s faith, or his acceptance or rejection of grace, 
as is in various places plainly taught. Therefore, this 
power is not one arbitrarily to forgive sins, but only to 
declare God’s forgiveness upon the fulfillment, on the 
part of the sinner, of Christ’s own conditions. 

The writer very well knows how some of Rome’s 
defenders try to dodge the real question or to explain 
it away. To make the matter appear plausible even 
from a Protestant point of view, they say that this is 
what they do; namely, as Christ’s mouthpiece, pro- 
nounce forgiveness, upon the sinner’s fulfilling of the 
conditions. But, according to Rome’s Confessions, by 
virtue of the authority delegated to them in their ordi- 
nation, the priests themselves, even those “who are in 
mortal sins” (Decisions of Trent, Fourth Session, 
Chapter vi), have Christ’s power on earth to forgive 
sins. Moreover, even upon the basis of their conten- 
tion that they, as Christ’s mouthpiece, forgive sins 
upon the fulfillment of the condition, their forgiveness 
is vain; as the ecclesiastical conditions (confession to 
the priest and satisfaction, to which some contrition is 
added) upon which they pretend to forgive, are not 
the same as Christ’s conditions (faith in Him and His 
atoning sacrifice). Therefore, their forgiveness in 
such cases could in no way be valid. Furthermore, upon 
the basis of Rome’s own theory of forgiveness, only 
those sins which are thus actually confessed would be 
forgiven. This would, therefore, not account for the 
multitudinous sins of heart and life, of omission and 
commission, that are not recited in the confession, not 


124 What after Death? 


to speak of the very state of utter sinfulness that does 
not always issue in conscious act. 

Thus in Rome’s pretended exercise of the power of 
the keys through her priesthood, she holds that awricu- 
lar confession “is absolutely necessary and its institu- 
tion divine” (Catechism of Perseverance, p. 220). She 
teaches, moreover, “Confession is the only means es- 
tablished by Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; for 
1st, our Lord does not point out any other; 2nd, the 
Church knows of no other; 8d, if there were any other 
the power to forgive and to retain sins confided to the 
apostles would be vain and useless’ (Ibid., p. 221). © 
This necessity of confession is also taught in Chapter 
V, Fourth Session of Council of Trent. See also Cardi- 
nal Gibbons’ Faith of Our Fathers, p. 394. 

Rome’s explanation, indeed, is that, after conscious 
sins have been confessed, ‘‘other sins, which do not 
-ocecur to him [the one confessing] after diligent 
thought, are understood to be included as a whole in 
that same confession” (Trent, Fourteenth Session, 
Chapter V). This is, however, only a very subtle way 
of avoiding a dilemma pointed out above, a mere sub- 
terfuge. Where is Rome’s authority for saying that 
those other, unconfessed, sins are included as a whole 
in such confession, and are therefore forgiven with 
those actually confessed—that is, forgiven in God’s 
own forgiveness and totally blotted out? 

The reader will notice that this teaching of Rome is 
wholly without divine authority, its authority being, 
that the Church has practiced it and that in Council as- 
sembled she has so ruled. Moreover, Rome teaches 
that “if any one say . . . that the confession of the 
penitent is not required in order that the priest may be 
able to absolve him: let him be anathema (Trent, 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 125 


Canon IX on Penance, Twentieth Session). This is 
virtually a contradiction of her explanation about un- 
confessed sins, given above. Here the confession of 
the penitent is declared to be “required in order that 
the priest may be able to absolve him,” while according 
to the former passage many unconfessed sins are said 
to be included in the confession and forgiveness of oth- 
ers. But Rome would answer that in the latter quota- 
tion the word confession refers to the act as a whole, 
while in the former it means the acknowledgment of 
particular sins in that confession. But this answer 
would simply bring us back to the dilemma already 
pointed out, out of which Rome tries to extricate her- 
self by her arrogant assumption that the Church’s © 
teaching on such points must be accepted as infallible 
and therefore final. 

To be honest about it, even Rome would have to ad- 
mit that acts of sin of which one is not conscious or 
which he has forgotten, could not possibly even enter 
as a factor into the penitence of the confessor, and 
could therefore not be covered, according to Rome’s 
own theory, by the absolution of the priest, nor includ- 
ed in the penance of the confessor. Only by acknowl- 
edging one’s inherent sinfulness, or state of sin, to 
God, Who alone knows all one’s sins, and in faith 
throwing one’s self upon His mercy because of the all- 
sufficient merits of Christ, can such forgiveness be 
obtained. 


In this connection it is necessary also a little more 
fully to consider the dogma of the infallibility of the 
pope, only briefly referred to above, as this dogma is 
involved in, and supposedly gives considerably valid- 
ity to, those considered above, as supposedly strength- 
ening that of purgatory. For an explanation of this 


126 What after Death? 


dogma we refer to Deharbe: “Is the Pope infallible? 
Yes; the General Council of the Vatican, in 1870, de- 
fined that the Pope is infallible when he teaches the 
Church ex cathedra. When does the Pope speak ex 
cathedra? The Pope speaks ex cathedra when, in the 
exercise of his office as Head of the Church, and Chief 
Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful, he declares 
what is to be held by the Universal Church as the 
true doctrine on any matter of faith or morals” (A 
Complete Catechism, pp. 145-146). The same point 
is developed at length in The Catechism Explained, 
by Spirago and Clarke, pages 236-241. In the words 
of Cardinal Gibbons, ‘What, then, is the real doctrine 
of Infallibility? It simply means that the Pope, as 
successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, by vir- 
tue of the promises of Jesus Christ, is preserved from 
error of judgment when he promulgates to the Church 
a decision on faith and morals” (Faith of Our Fath- 
ers, p. 149). 

On this point Bellarmine goes even so far as to 
make the following extreme declaration: “If the Pope 
should err by enjoining vices or prohibiting virtues, 
the Church, unless she would sin against conscience, 
would be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues 
evil.” And at the time of the final establishing of 
this dogma, one of the official organs of the Roman 
Catholic Church made this declaration: “It is obli- 
gatory to hear the voice of Pius IX., when he speaks, 
avowedly to the universal Church, as it is to listen 
to the voice of Jesus Christ” (Freeman’s Journal and 
Catholic Register, New York, October 1, 1870). In 
his Commentaries on the Decretals, Prospero Fagnini 
speaks of the pope’s authority in the following strik- 
ing words: “He may make laws and institutions for 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 127 


all the world. He has power over all men, even infi- 
dels. The Pope judges all men, and can be judged only 
of God. He cannot be judged of councils; nay, were 
the whole world to pronounce in any particular against 
the Pope, it would be right to submit to his judgment 
against the world. Everything he does is done by 
divine authority. The Pope may, by himself alone, 
determine the symbols of faith, since it belongs to 
him only to decide in matters of faith. The Pope is 
not subject to the decisions of his predecessors—not 
even to that of the Apostles; for there is no power 
that can limit the power of the keys. He may dis- 
pense with the observance of the divine laws and the 
Gospel precepts. The Pope may grant every species 
of dispensation, with exception of one, to marry one’s 
father, or one’s mother. He may depose magistrates 
and princes, and free their subjects from their obli- 
gations to loyalty. He is king of kings and ruler of 
rulers; he is the prince of bishops, the judge of all 
men. He can create law where before there was 
none.” And in the Vatican Council, the bishop of 
Poitiers defended infallibility thus: “St. Paul was 
beheaded; consequently his head, which represents the 
ordinary episcopate, was not indissolubly united to 
the body. St. Peter, on the contrary, was crucified 
with his head downwards, to show that his head, which 
was the image of the Papacy, sustained the whole 
body.” His conclusion, therefore, was that the pope 
must be infallible. What transcendental logic, that 
the accepted rules of ordinary logic do not cover and 
sustain! But thus, altogether without any rational 
argument, was this subversive dogma of papal infalli- 
bility established in July, 1870, by a body of 523 pope- 
controlled priests, 


128 What after Death? 


It is surely not necessary for us to answer such 
arrogant assumptions. There is nothing in the whole 
range of God’s revelation to man to sustain such pre- 
posterous claims. They are in direct conflict with 
both the teaching and the practice of Christ and His 
apostles. These exhorted their followers to be sub- 
ject and obedient to the recognized civil authorities, 
and themselves meekly submitted to them. Whence, 
then, has the pope as the pretended Vicar of Christ 
on earth such absolute authority? Surely, only by 
falsely arrogating the same to himself, and by the 
support of his fawning and flattering college of car- 
dinals, et al., appointed by himself, or by the hierarchy, 
which has systematically been developed and perfected 
through the centuries as a vast machinery of subju- 
gation, and of which he himself is the absolute and 
arbitrary head. See power of the keys above. 


Papal infallibility and the Roman hierarchy are 
totally foundationless; therefore the superstructure 
cannot stand. The premises ‘are false, and so must 
the conclusion be. What then becomes of papal in- 
fallibility as an alleged argument for purgatory? The 
answer is only too evident from what is said above. 
Further answer to the dogma itself is, therefore, not 
necessary for our purpose. 


To sum up this sub-division, such is Rome’s theory 
of indulgences, with their alleged efficacy for the relief 
of souls in an hypothetical purgatory and with their 
supposed source in some assumed treasury of imag- 
inary superfluous merits of others, together with the 
imaginary reciprocal blessings that are alleged to 
come to men who have by such pretended indulgences 
supposedly helped other supposedly suffering souls 
when they themselves are supposed to be imprisoned 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 129 


in that hypothetical purgatory, supposedly burning in 
its hypothetical flames. And the alleged power of dis- 
pensing all these imaginary superabundant merits and 
blessings is, in virtue of the alleged absolute supreme 
power of the keys, supposed to be vested in the pope 
as the pretended infallible successor of St. Peter, who 
supposedly was the first pope of Rome. And, more- 
over, through the pope this alleged power is suppos- 
edly exercised by the pope-controlled priests during 
the professedly necessary or compulsory auricular con- 
fession to them by all the laity. And, of course, Rome 
arrogantly declares that, in order to be saved, all must 
accept these theories with all their associated supposi- 
tions and pretensions as being the very oracles of — 
God. Hence, no one need wonder at the tremendous 
power of Rome over the will and conscience of its 
millions of devotees to do her bidding! 


Thus by adding to her dogmas of purgatory, papal 
infalibility and the power of the keys—with her arbi- 
trary control over imaginary human satisfactions, 
good works, and superfluous merits—that of the neces- 
sity of confession to the priestly agents of the Church, 
Rome has developed a system of subjugation, or moral 
and spiritual bondage, that is absolutely tyrannical. 
What the terrible inquisition was to certain countries 
in its day, that this system of doctrine has been in a 
sense to the whole Roman Catholic Church through- 
out the world for all these centuries. The inquisition 
was only the visible form, or logical application of, 
the confessional and of those doctrines that make it 
so effective. 

Thus, as the dogmas of indulgences, the power of 
the keys, confession, and papal infallibility are only 
unfounded assumptions, they are totally without 


130 What after Death? 


value as arguments in suport of the dogma of pur- 
gatory. 


3 PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 


The doctrine as to, or the practice of, praying for 
the dead, was naturally developed with those of super- 
abundant merits, indulgences, etc., considered above, 
as those are naturally suggested by, and linked with, 
it. According to it, by their prayers the faithful can 
help to shorten the sufferings of their kindred and 
friends in purgatory. 

In the writings of the Fathers, this doctrine or 
practice really antedated that of a definite idea of 
purgatory, which, however, it even there almost neces- 
sarily implies. Jt is, moreover, conversely, also natur- 
ally implied in, and almost necessitated by, the doc- 
trine of purgatory. These two doctrines are, there- 
fore, very closely associated. In the words of Cardi- 
nal Gibbons, “The existence of purgatory naturally 
implies the correlative dogma,—the utility of praying 
for the dead; for, the souls consigned to this middle 
state have not reached the term of their journey. 
They are still exiles from heaven, and fit subjects for 
divine clemency” (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 247.) 

Cardinal Wiseman’s words are of similar import: 
“To examine fully the proofs of this doctrine [of pur- 
gatory], it is necessary to connect it with another 
Catholic practice, that of praying for the dead. For 
this practice, as we shall see, is essentially based on 
the belief in purgatory; and consequently the prin- 
ciples of both are intimately connected together. 
Why does the Catholic pray for his departed friend, 
but that he fears, lest not having died in so pure a . 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 131 


state as to have been immediately admitted to the 
sight of God, he may be enduring that punishment 
which God has awarded after the forgiveness of his 
sins; and believes that through the intercession of 
his brethren, he may be released from that distress- 
ing situation? I have no hesitation in saying that 
the two doctrines go so completely together, that if 
we succeed in demonstrating the one, the other neces- 
sarily follows. For, if we prove that it has always 
been the belief in the Church of Christ, that they 
who are departed may be benefited by our prayers 
and brought to the sight of God, while the same time 
it has no less been its universal belief that they who 
had incurred eternal punishment could not be released 
from it, assuredly we have the same system as ours,— 
that there was a middle state wherein the face of God 
was not enjoyed, and yet eternal punishment was not 
suffered” (Lectures, pp. 382-383). 


According to the Catechism of Perseverance, there 
are “four principal motives to pray for the dead. 1st. 
The glory of God, for whom we procure perfect ador- 
ers, by aiding the souls in purgatory to enter heaven. 
2d. Charity, the souls in purgatory have a claim on 
our charity, because they are our brethren in Jesus 
Christ, and our relations and friends, according to 
the flesh. 3d. Justice; because some of them may be 
suffering on our account. 4th. Our own interest; be- 
cause these souls, when delivered by our prayers, will 
intercede for us before God and aid us to get out of 
purgatory” (pp. 179-180). 


As an apparently plausible argument in defense of 
the dogma of prayers for the dead, Rome’s apologists 
appeal to an equally erroneous converse proposition ; 


182 What after Death? 


namely, that the prayers of the departed for their 
friends and kindred on earth are answered (as above), 
and that these departed ones inspire the living to pray 
for them (Lepecier: Indulgences, pp. 49-51; Kinane: 
Purgatory, pp. 179-182; et al.). But, surely, such 
erroneous arguments can issue only in error. Erro- 
neous premises necessarily lead to erroneous conclu- 
sions. Such reasoning is as bad as, or perhaps worse 
than, assuming what is to be proved in order to prove 
it, or reasoning in a circle. 

Thus in order to bolster up Rome’s upscriptural 
teaching concerning a temporal future punishment in 
purgatory, assumption after assumption, theory after 
theory, has been developed and elevated into the dig- 
nity of a dogma. There is no more foundation for 
the dogmas of human satisfactions, penance, good 
works, works of supererogation or supererogatory 
merits, supreme papal power of the keys, auricular 
confession, papal indulgences, and papal infallibility, 
as well as prayers for the dead, than there is for that 
of purgatory. What then becomes of the dogma of 
purgatory, which these dogmas are supposed to prove 
and strengthen? This of itself should even be suffi- 
cient to rule out of court Rome’s teaching concerning 
purgatory as totally untenable as a supposedly estab- 
lished article of faith. Thus it is seen that these 
dogmas, being themselves unfounded, are valueless as 
arguments for the dogma of purgatory, or with which 
they have largely been developed, or with which they 
are so closely associated. 

Having presented what might be called chiefly neg- 
ative testimony, we shall now proceed briefly to show 
that the positive testimony of Scripture is explicitly 
against the dogma of purgatory. 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 133 


V DIRECT EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE AGAINST 
THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 


Considered in the light of Scripture, the doctrine 
of purgatory has no more foundation than those of 
the theoretical limbus infantum (the abode of unbap- 
tized children) and limbus patrum (the abode of the 
fathers before the advent of Christ or His descent into 
Hades). These three divisions of the future world 
have absolutely no Scripture to support them. They 
rather almost seem to be cunning inventions of the 
fertile brains of those who would strengthen the 
tyrannical pretensions of the hierarchy by these man- 
acles of moral and spiritual slavery. Even its most 
ardent exponents must admit that nowhere in the 
Bible is the existence of any of these three places 
directly taught or even plausibly implied. 


Surely 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, already noted, can 
constitute no argument for purgatory as against the 
clear teaching of the canonical Scriptures to the con- 
trary. The Apocryphal books may be quoted as an 
expression of the opinions of man of their own times, 
or at least of their authors, but as an expression of 
the mind of the Lord they are without value. 


Neither dare the Fathers of the Church, nor any 
prevailing tradition, apart from clear Scriptural war- 
rant, be made the basis of this or any other doctrine. 
To be sure, according to the Church of Rome, the 
teachings of the Fathers and the prevailing traditions, 
the decisions of the Councils and the ipse dixit ex 
cathedras of the popes as Christ’s pretended mouth- 
piece, have equal validity with the written Word of 
God (Wiseman: Lectures, pp. 60ff.; 304ff.). But it 
seems needless here further to refute this claim, as 


134 What after Death? 


this also is based upon the absolutely false premise 
as to the authority of the Roman hierarchy and its 
great papal pretender. Since her other doctrines on 
these premises are Scripturally false, as already shown, 
her conclusions as to the equal validity of the tradi- 
tions and the teachings of the Church with the Word 
of God must necessarily be equally false. 


We can excuse, or apologize for, those early Fathers 
of the Church who, in consonance with some other 
vague theories, honestly believed in the reality of some 
purgatory, because theirs was not an easy task to rid 
themselves of various pagan ideas and traditions with 
which they were surrounded and amid which many 
of them had been brought up. But for a professed 
theologian and believer in the inspired Word of God, 
in this age enriched with centuries of Christian his- 
tory and Christian thought and experience, to so do, 
there appears to be no excuse nor possible apology. 

As already stated, at the foundation of the doctrine 
of purgatory there are a number of assumptions that 
are utterly unscriptural and erroneous. The classifica- 
tion of sins into mortal and venial, and the theory 
that, even though forgiven, the forgiven person must 
still make satisfaction for venial sins, and that this 
satisfaction must be made in purgatorial fires here- 
after, if not made here, are equally false. They serve 
well, however, as links in the mystic chain that still 
enthralls half of nominal Christendom. 

Forgiveness means exactly what Scripture teaches 
that it means, and no less. When the thief on the 
cross was forgiven he was.a fully saved soul (Luke 
23:48). So when St. Paul was converted to faith in 
Christ he was fully pardoned and his past sins against 
the Lord were completely cancelled. St. Paul plainly 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 135 


declares: “There is therefore now no condemnation 
to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). And 
this forgiveness is clearly limited to this life with its 
offer of salvation. St. Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:1-2: “And 
working together with him we entreat also that ye 
receive not the grace of God in vain (for he saith 
[Isa. 49:8], At an acceptable time I hearkened unto 
thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee: be- 
hold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the 
day of salvation).”’ The same is also implied in Psalm 
89:18; Matthew 16:19; 18:18. See also Matthew 
12 :31-32, the bearing of which upon this point has 
been given under Probationism. 


Not only does probation and the possibility of for- 
giveness end with death, but the destiny of the soul 
is determined or fixed. If unforgiven, its state is one 
of punishment from which there is no release. No 
sins done in the body can, by any temporal punish- 
ment, be atoned for so as to release from punishment. 
On the other hand, if forgiven, the soul is exempt 
from all punishment for sins committed. In the case 
of the paralytic whom Christ healed and forgave 
(Matt. 9:1-8), the soul was freed from sin just as in- 
stantaneously as the body was freed from sickness. 
Thus the thief on the cross was forgiven and at once 
admitted into paradise (Luke 23:42-43). This would 
indeed be impossible if it had to be effected by the 
power of man, or by his own satisfaction, or if there 
were no other satisfaction; but it is affected by the 
power of God, Christ himself having made full satis- 
faction for the forgiven sins. 

This brings us logically to another point in fuller 
proof of our statement. Forgiveness and salvation 
come alone through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 


136 What after Death? 


It is by His blood we are cleansed, as it is written, 
“The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from 
all sin” (1 John 1:7)—not limited to original sin, but 
all-inclusive; ‘‘Unto him that loveth us, and loosed 
us from our sins by his blood,” ete. (Rev. 1:5) ; “And 
he said to me, These are they that come out of the 
great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and 
made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 
7:14). Surely no man can redeem another here or 
release him from whatever punishment he may be 
suffering hereafter, as it is written, “None of them 
can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God 
a ransom for him,’ etc. (Ps. 49:7-10). See also 
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6; Hebrews 1:3; 9:18-14; John 13:8. 
Forgiveness or cleansing is, however, offered to us in 
the Word and sacraments here. Thus Jesus says, “‘Al- 
ready ye are clean because of the word which I have 
spoken unto you” (John 15:3); and St. Paul writes, 
“Not by works done in righteousness, which we did 
ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, 
through the washing of regeneration and renewing of 
the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). 


The righteousness of God indeed demands justice. 
But this justice can not be satisfied by the sinner him- 
self, either by merits or by suffering; nor can it be 
satisfied even for him by another man, as no one can 
make satisfaction even for himself. All are sinners 
before God and equally in need of a Saviour. There- 
fore, the merits of one man are not, and cannot be, 
applied to the needs of another. Indeed, all who are 
saved are equally saved by the grace of God through 
faith and not by any merits of their own. That man 
is thus justified, is evident even from the Old Testa- 
ment (Gen. 15:6, also quoted in Gal. 3:6; Heb. 2:4). 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 137 


And in the New Testament it forms the glorious mes- 
sage of the Gospel (Rom. 3; etc.). 


That man is justified by Christ through faith, is 
repeatedly taught. St. Paul says, “And by him every 
one that believeth is justified from all things, from 
which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” 
(Acts 13:39). Again, quoting Habakkuk, he writes, 
“For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from 
faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous 
shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). And again, “Being 
therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1); “‘For 
by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that 
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). 
And the effect of this appropriation of Christ by faith 
is stated in the eighth chapter of Romans, as follows: 
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them that 
are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life 
in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and 
death. For what the law could not do, that it was 
weak through the flesh, God, sending his own son in 
the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin 
in the flesh,” etc. See also John 3:15-21, 36; Acts 
16:31; Rom. 3:19-81; 4:28-25; 8:33-34; Gal. 2:16-17; 
Titus 3:17. 


Thus satisfaction was made by Christ alone and this 
satisfaction is all-sufficient. And this satisfaction is 
appropriated by the sinner to his soul’s salvation by 
faith. The so-called merits of man are therefore not 
merits at all but only the outgrowth or fruits of faith. 
What then becomes of the doctrines of good works, 
works of supererogation, etc., appealed to in defense 
of that purgatory? Such human merits are not only 


138 What after Death? 


not taught in Scripture, but they minimize- Christ’s 
atoning and all-sufficient merits. Christ suffered for 
man’s sin: and if another suffering in purgatory were 
necessary it would nullify the free forgiveness in 
Christ, while sin would be punished both in Christ 
and in the sinner. 


Moreover, there is no passage in Scripture that 
teaches, or from which one could truthfully infer, the 
reality of a state of any such temporal purgatorial 
punishment hereafter for sins done in the body, 
whether forgiven or unforgiven at the time of death. 
But many passages are squarely against it. And this 
was unquestionably the Spirit-guided understanding 
on the part of the saints of the Bible, when they real- 
ized that their departure thither was at hand. Thus 
st. Stephen called upon God, saying, “Lord Jesus, re- 
ceive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). St. Simeon joyfully 
said, ‘““Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord, ac- 
cording to thy word, in peace” (Luke 2:29). Ina sim- 
ilar vein St. Paul says that to be absent from the body 
is to be present with the Lord, and while to live is 
Christ, to die is gain (2 Cor. 5:1-8; Phil. 1:21-23). See 
also 2 Tim. 1:12; 4:6-8; 1 Thess. 4:3. And Christ in 
His letter to the church of Smyrna says, ‘‘Be thou faith- 
ful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life’ 
(Rev. 2:10),—not a purgatorial fire. The Old Testa- 
ment bears similar testimony, especially in its accounts 
of the death of Moses, Aaron, and many others. Thus 
God’s saints about to die, or when writing about death, 
nowhere intimated even the possibility of such a thing 
as a temporal punishment or a fire of purgatory in 
the future world, but everywhere spoke of, or inti- 
mated, immediate transition from this sinful world to 
soul-blessedness and peace, a fact more fully discussed 


Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Tenable? 139 


in Chapter III. Nor do they ever manifest any fear 
of such punishment when about to depart. 

Thus they who are forgiven or die in a state of 
grace, whatever their past sins, enter immediately 
upon a state of blessedness, even as Lazarus is said 
to have immediately entered into Abraham’s bosom 
(Luke 16:22), and as Elijah was taken directly up 
into heaven (2 Kings 2:11). 

And, of course, the Scriptures know nothing of such 
a place as purgatory. They speak of only two places 
beyond the resurrection and general judgment (Matt. 
7:138-14; 25:34, 41, 46; Mark 16:16). And this is 
true also of the period between death and the resur- | 
rection (Luke 16:19-31, et al.). It has even been held 
by some that there is only one place between death 
and the resurrection, in a general way called Hades, 
but that this place is divided into Paradise and Tar- 
tarus. But this is rather reading heathen conceptions 
into the language of Scripture. As this is more fully 
discussed elsewhere (Chapter I), we shall not consider 
it further here. Suffice it to say that Scripture reveals 
not more than two abodes, one for the saved and one 
for the lost, both before and after the final judgment. 

Moreover, as there are only two abodes in the future 
world, so also are there only two classes of men, as 
well as of angels. These two classes are spoken of as 
the sheep and the goats, the saved and the lost, those 
in Abraham’s bosom or in Paradise and those in Hades, 
the righteous and the unrighteous, the blessed and the 
condemned, those in heaven and those in hell (Gehen- 
na). There is no third class anywhere spoken of, as 
those in purgatory, or a fourth class in a limbus in- 
fantum, or a fifth class in a kmbus partum. 

We have now presented Rome’s theory of purgatory 


140 What after Death? 


from her own statements of it. We have shown both 
her direct proofs for this doctrine, and her arguments 
for it from her associated doctrines, to be valueless 
and groundless. We have, moreover, shown that the 
Scriptures are directly and emphatically against the 
existence of purgatory, and that it has existence only 
in Rome’s completed theological and ecclesiastical sys- 
tem. We shall, therefore, leave this theory of a sup- 
posed temporal future purgation and punishment and 
proceed to consider a theory that we shall show to be 
equally unscriptural and groundless. 


CHAPTER VI 
UNIVERSALISM 


ARE ALL MEN FINALLY TO BE SAVED? 


The theory that all men will finally be saved is a 
very attractive one to many people. Such universal 
salvation were indeed, if consistent with divine jus- 
tice, a consummation devoutly to be wished. And in 
the develoment of this theory the wish was undoubt- . 
edly father of the thought, as it apparently is in its 
defense in our day. 


I BRIEF OUTLINE OF ITS HISTORY 


The elements of this theory are found already in 
the speculative period of the early Church. Thus 
Clement of Alexandria (fl. 200) and Origin (d. 254) 
held that every soul must finally be saved in the ulti- 
mate triumph of the love of God. But through the 
ascendency of the more orthodox or Scriptural theol- 
ogy of the later Fathers, like Athanasius (d. 373), 
Augustine (d. 430), et al., those early intimations of 
Universalism were effectually counteracted. Never- 
theless, there were individuals in probably every cen- 
tury of Christian history who entertained a belief in 
a final universal salvation. 

During the closing half of the seventeenth century, 
and especially during the first half of the eighteenth 
eentury, this ancient theory was entertained again 
here and there, especially in England and America. 


142 What after Death? 


Even the Dunkers or German Baptists, who settled 
in Pennsylvania in 1719, believed in and taught a form 
of universal restoration. But as the specific doctrine 
of a denomination it is directly traceable to the Rev. 
James Relly (d. 1780) of London, England, whose 
book, entitled The Union, became for the time its chief 
theological source. It soon found able adherents also 
in America, where it has made considerable progress. 
Its first public exponent in America was the Rev. John 
Murray (d. 1815), a follower of Relly, who preached 
his first sermon in the United States on September 
30, 1770. He may be called the American father of 
Universalism in its older and purer form. But the 
father of Universalism in its later and more corrupt 
form was the Rev. Hosea Ballou (d. 1852). He went 
much further in his denials than did Murray, includ- 
ing even the denial of the divinity of Christ. In this 
he was at least consistent, in following the theory to 
a logical conclusion. The Rev. Walter Balfour adopted 
the theories of Ballou and carried them to even more 
radical conclusions. 

The Universalist denomination was organized in 
1803, at Winchester, New Hampshire; but it is even 
today but a comparatively small ecclesiastical body. 
Exponents of universal salvation were, however, soon 
found also in various other denominations, notably 
in the Episcopal and Congregational churches; and 
even in our day there are also many exponents of it 
in other church bodies. 


II ITS FORMS 


There are several forms of this theory. According 
to the more extreme or radical form, sin in its effects 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 143 


in this world is its own punishment, and all men there- 
fore enter upon eternal happiness immediately after 
death. This theory, which may be called Universalism 
proper, has comparatively few adherents either among 
the clergy or among the laity. 

According to the other form, which should more 
properly be called restorationism, there will indeed be 
some punishment in the future world, remedial in 
purpose; but all men will finally be saved or restored. 
Both forms are popularly designated Universalism, 
but it is rather this latter and prevailing form that 
we are here considering. 

Of these two forms of the theory of Universalism 
there are various shades, but a consideration of these 
is not necessary for our purpose. Suffice it to say 
that Universalism of whatever form is a reaction 
against the orthodox doctrine that the wicked here will 
' be punished hereafter and that this punishment will 
be endless. 


III ITS BASIS 


Universalism is confessedly based upon the natural 
goodness or love of God. Man is not regarded as 
under the wrath of God because of origin sin, except 
that all men are born with certain inherited incom- 
pleteness. To it, man is not really a fallen but an 
unfolding and developing being. And though his be- 
ginning was very low, his inherent possibilities have 
brought him up to the high plane of being as a co- 
worker with God in the development and enrichment 
of himself and the world. And according to it, he is 
still moving upward in his ascending being, ever 
nearer toward perfection in God. Moreover, his de- 


144 What after Death? 


velopment is not limited to this world; but it is des- 
tined to continue throughout his whole existence. 

The individual may thus be said to be saved by his 
own action (if the word saved could be applied to one 
not lost), in conforming his character to the will of 
God. And as Christ received the Spirit of God, so 
by striving can every man receive that Spirit. There 
are indeed rewards and punishments, but these serve 
only as means to help him attain his high end. Pun- 
ishment not only here, but also for a time hereafter, 
is therefore a means to final salvation. Wilful dis- 
obedience may thus be punished, although the guilt 
be forgiven. And at death each soul enters a new 
plane of being; and this upward or outward step is 
its resurrection. Thus man’s condition is not fixed 
at death. The soul in death is not perfected, but 
enters the new plane of existence as it leaves the old. 
Future life is, therefore, a continuation of the present: 
life. The body does not rise literally, nor is there a 
general judgment in the commonly accepted sense. 
The passages of Scripture on these points are explained 
metaphorically or spiritually. It is further held that, 
in its new sphere, being less hampered in its oppor- 
tunities for development, the soul’s progress under the 
influence of truth and love will ultimately redeem it 
from sin and suffering and bring it to God and holi- 
ness. 


IV ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF UNIVERSAL- 
ISM CONSIDERED 


The theory of Universalism has been defended in 
various ways, some of the arguments being quite 
plausible when superficially viewed in their own light 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 145 


alone, without regard to the explicit teaching of the 
Word of God elsewhere to the contrary. 


1 ARGUMENT FROM GOD’S GOODNESS 


Many of its teachers, in trying to defend Univer- 
salism, merely appeal to what may be called its pri- 
mary postulate; namely, that universal salvation must 
necessarily follow from God’s superabounding good- 
ness. The goodness of God, in a sense, indeed also 
underlies other arguments to be noted later on. But 
by these men it is made the paramount and almost 
arbitrary cause of this supposed universal salvation. — 
With them, the Scriptural teaching of the atonement 
has only a figurative meaning, the showing forth of 
this abounding goodness. As this defense has on its 
side some able exponents and considerable apparent 
Scriptural evidence, it is well to consider it somewhat 
at length so as better to show its inherent weakness 
and subtle fallacies. 


Before we take up the direct teaching of Scripture 
upon this point, we may say that God’s goodness is 
indeed a universally acknowledged fact. It is abso- 
lute and unerring. But to say that, because of this 
essential goodness of God, He does not and cannot 
punish the wicked, as His Word has always been 
understood to teach, is only begging the question. It 
is assuming what is to be proved or disproved. God 
is indeed good, and this is true of Him with refer- 
ence to the future world, as well as with reference 
to the present world. But in the present world we 
- have unmistakable cases of His punishment of wicked 
men with death; His punishment of the wicked people 


146 What after Death? 


before the flood (Gen. 6 and 7) ; of Sodom and Gomor- 
rah, and Lot’s wife (Gen. 19 :23-26) ; of Korah (Num. 
16 :81-85) ; of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). 
These are indeed exceptional cases, as God does not 
always thus mete out punishment in this world, but 
they serve as a warning to wicked people as to God’s 
punishment for sin to be meted out hereafter. 

The very facts, moreover, that not all wickedness 
is thus punished in this world, and that such punish- 
ments as are inflicted here are unequal and inade- 
quate, indicates that just and adequate punishment 
must be meted out in the future world. Indeed, the 
fact of punishment here, of which we know from ob- 
servation and from Revelation, is as difficult of ex- 
planation as that of punishment hereafter, which 
reason demands and Scripture reveals. And the evi- 
dence for that future punishment in which God’s jus- 
tice will be equalized, becomes all the stronger in the 
light of the inequalities that prevail in this world, 
especially the manifest sufferings of many innocent 
people—in many cases even caused by the wickedness 
of others—while oftentimes the wicked seem to be 
spared and to prosper. And the facts that wicked men 
are thus spared, or given longer lease of life and ex- 
ceptional opportunities to repent, and that God makes 
His sun to rise upon the good and upon the evil, etc. 
(Matt. 5:45), only prove God’s long suffering and 
mercy in manifestation of His love while men are 
still in this world of probation and possible grace. 
But exponents of Universalism conform the dealings 
of the heavenly Father with His creatures to those of 
an indulgent and erring human parent, forgetting 
that God’s justice is unerring and that its scope and 
purpose are infinite and eternal, 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 147 


These men contend that the very nature of the Gos- 
pel implies unlimited goodness, and therefore unlim- 
ited mercy. They hold that this is involved in the 
message of the angel to the shepherds upon Judaea’s 
hills, “Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy 
which shall be to all the people” (Luke 2:10). How- 
ever, the fact that the good tidings of great joy are 
meant for all people does not in the least imply that 
all people will accept them and be saved. These men 
fail to make full application of the parable of the 
prodigal son. The father’s love for his son was in- 
deed great, and he longed to have his son come back. — 
But that did not bring back the son against his will. 
They must not forget the man who had not on a wed- 
ding garment (Matt. 22:11-13) ; Christ’s own account 
of the judgment (Matt. 25:41-46); and many other 
passages. Indeed, the Saviour Himself distinctly 
teaches that not all will thus be saved, as for example 
in Matthew 13:49-50, “So shall it be in the end of the 
world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the 
wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them 
into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping 
and the gnashing of teeth.” See also Matthew 8:11- 
12; 18:41-42; Luke 13 :23-29. 


The Gospel does not cease to be gospel or good news 
because some men accept it not and do not profit by 
its message. The good news of an invitation to a 
royal feast does not cease to be such because certain 
invited guests decline the invitation or refuse to eat. 
The glad tidings of pardon, upon condition of alle- 
giance and obedience, for guilty rebels condemned to 
die, are indeed meant to announce to them salvation 
from death. Nor does their refusal of allegiance and 
obedience invalidate the good intention of the mes- 


148 What after Death? 


sage or the goodness of the king. Their refusal does 
not, therefore, make it a message of death and thus 
impeach the justice of the king. It simply leaves them 
under the just sentence of death under which they 
were before the message was sent to them. To argue, 
moreover, that the love of God is equal to all, has no 
weight, as by wilfully rejecting that love a man can 
make that love of none effect. To save a man against 
his will would not only make him a mere machine, but 
it would also make love cease to be love. | 


A passage often quoted by exponents of Universal- 
ism is Revelation 21:4, “And he shall wipe away every 
tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; 
neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, 
any more: the first things are passed away.” This 
will indeed be true of the saved, of those who have 
accepted grace and.become God’s saints. But that 
some will be lost and that the above passage there- 
fore does not refer to all men.is clear from verses 7 
and 8 following: “He that overcometh shall inherit 
these things; and I will be his God, and he shall be 
my son. But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and 
abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sor- 
cerers, and idolators, and all liars, their part shall be 
in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; 
which is the second death.” ‘The evidence of these 
two verses is so overwhelming that further comment 
on this particular point is unnecessary. Indeed, of 
all the books in the New Testament there is none more 
explicitly against Universalism than is the book of 
Revelation. Its use in defense of the theory of uni- 
versal salvation is, to say the least, hazardous, as all 
such passages concerning the saved are contrasted 
with equally emphatic passages concerning the lost. 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 149 


What is said of the above passages is equally true 
of Isaiah 25:8, often quoted by Universalists: “He 
hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord Je- 
hovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and 
the reproach of his people will he take away from off 
all the earth: for Jehovah hath spoken it.” The use 
of this passage for Universalism is also strikingly 
nullified by verses 10-11. 


Among other passages of Scripture cited in proof 
of this supposed universal salvation as the result of 
the superabounding goodness of God, are those that 
speak of the desire of God that all men might be saved. 
Thus they quote St. Paul’s words, that God our Saviour ~ 
“would have all men to be saved, and come to the 
knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). So also do 
they quote St. Peter, that the Lord is longsuffering, 
“not wishing that any should perish, but that all 
should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And even 
in the Old Testament do they find such passages, as 
for example, “As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have 
no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the 
wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek. 33:11). 
These passages indeed do express that which under- 
lies the whole Gospel message; namely, that God de- 
sires all men to repent and live. That was the im- 
pelling motive, prompted by His infinite love, in send- 
ing His Son to save the world. God indeed has no 
more pleasure in the death of the sinner than He has 
in his sin; and yet, in spite of God’s hatred of sin, 
sin stands out as an incontrovertible fact. And this 
fact is not only observed on every hand, but it is also 
either explicitly stated or clearly implied throughout 
the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. He has 
made infinite provision for the salvation of the sinner 


150 What after Death? 


and is far more willing to save him than the sinner 
himself is to accept God’s offer of salvation; but this 
provision and willingness on the part of God to save 
the sinner do not and cannot save him against his 
will. To do so would in effect be equivalent to de- 
humanizing man, or to placing him, an otherwise 
supposedly free moral and responsible agent, upon the 
plane of a fate-controled automaton. These Scrip- 
ture passages, therefore, do not afford any evidence 
for the doctrine of universal salvation or restoration, 
and especially so in the light of many other passages, 
indeed of the whole underlying tenor of Scripture, to 
the contrary. They show only what is the keynote 
of the whole Gospel; namely, God’s impelling love 
toward a fallen race, His consequent provision in 
Christ Jesus for the salvation of all who will believe 
in Him and accept His amply provided grace and be 
saved.. Indeed, these very passages, expressive of 
His willingness that all should be saved, unmistakably 
imply the fact that many against their own eternal 
interests reject His proffered grace and are, therefore, 
lost. 


To argue, moreover, that future punishment would 
not be consistent with the general goodness of a merci- 
ful God, is simply to read into His justice the weak- 
nesses of an overindulgent human father, that often 
make him yield to the child’s wishes in gross defiance 
of actual justice. To argue that future punishment 
would be unjust is to pretend to know all God’s pur- 
poses in the whole order in general and in all punish- 
ment in particular. One might as well object to all 
trial and suffering in this life, and indeed to God’s 
permission of any evil whatsoever, as to object to 
future punishment, the decree for which is written 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 151 


clear and large across the whole compass of His reve- 
lation, including even that of His fatherly love and 
goodness. 


But some have gone to the extent of so extending 
God’s goodness into the future world as to offer to 
those who depart this life a second probation here- 
after. They hold that in the disembodied state upon 
which souls enter after death, and in the light of their 
former life’s experience and then more immediate and 
therefore better understanding of God and of self and 
of the true nature of the spiritual world and of their 
own best interests, this second probation with its sec- 
ond offer of the Gospel would necessarily be improved 
by them to their final salvation. Dorner thus makes 
the following statement: ‘Christian grace is designed 
for human beings, not for inhabitants of earth. 

.  desus seeks the lost—lost may be sought 
alRtey in the kingdom of the dead. . . . A proof 
that, according to the New Testament the time of 
grace does not by a universal law expire with death, 
is found in Christ’s raising of the dead; e. g., the youth 
of Nain received by being raised from the dead a 
prolonged term of grace, through which Christ’s love 
became first known to him” (Future State, pp. 101- 
102). Even Julius Muller held that salvation will be 
offered hereafter to those souls to whom such offer 
did not come here. 


To say, as Dorner does, that “Christian grace is 
designed for human beings, not for inhabitants of 
earth,” is not only without any direct Scripture war- 
rant whatever, but it is even in direct contradiction 
of the words of St. Paul, “Behold, now is the accept- 
able time; behold, now is the day of salvation” ( 2 Cor. 


bb2 What after Death? 


6:2). For a fuller discussion of this point see chap- 
ter on Probationism. Dorner’s second statement, “Je- 
sus seeks the lost—lost may be sought also in the 
kingdom of the dead,” is equally without foundation. 
The passages of Scripture that bear upon this point, 
in their content and connection, plainly refer this 
seeking of Jesus to this world. He says to Zacchaeus, 
“Today is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as 
he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man 
came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 
19:9-10). He said, moreover, that He came to seek 
and to save that which was lost, not that which will 
be lost in the future world. The same is also evident 
from Matthew 18:11, although this verse, it should be 
said, does not have good manuscript authority. Other 
passages referring to Christ’s coming to this world 
and the purpose of His coming, when read in con- 
nection with their contexts, amply confirm the fact 
that His grace is meant for, and limited to, this world. 

With reference to Dorner’s third point, namely, that 
Christ’s raising of the dead is a proof that the time 
of grace does not expire with death, we may say 
that such cases were miraculous exceptions to the 
general law. It is therefore manifestly impossible 
from such cases to draw the conclusion that salvation 
extends into the future world. Indeed, as the cumu- 
lative evidence of Scripture is overwhelmingly against 
such a conclusion, the speculative argument from the 
cases cited loses all its force in proof of a possible 
future restoration. Surely, as the cases of Christ’s 
raising of the dead were miraculous exceptions in the 
natural or physical order, so must they likewise have 
been in the spiritual or psychic order, all ethical sup- 
positions or objections to the contrary notwithstand- 


Will All Finally Be Saved? | 153 


ing. But the objection is made that a miracle in the 
moral sphere, in such cases as for instance the with- 
holding of judgment or of final decision as to destiny 
until the persons died again, would be “destructive of 
all faith.” This is, however, a mere assumption. It 
is falsely to presume that our faith as to what might 
or will be in the moral or spiritual sphere, is in full 
correspondence with, and comprehensive of, all the 
moral and spiritual dealings of the absolute and om- 
nipotent God. Moreover, raising the question as to 
which death in the case of those raised, the first or 
the second, must have been followed by judgment 
(Dorner: Future State, p. 102, Note 3), leads only © 
to empty speculation. And to say that the fact of such 
two deaths must compel us to accept a state of proba- 
tion at least between these two deaths, and therefore 
also in the spiritual world, is to try to press a con- 
clusion which is not in the premises. And, indeed, the 
implied premises themselves are largely assumptions. 
Therefore, such reasoning is not only without Scrip- 
tural foundation and wholly inconclusive, but it is also 
illogical, and utterly without weight in the light of 
God’s express declarations in many parts of His Word 
to the contrary. 


But we must not be understood to classify Dorner 
among professed Universalists; for with Universalism 
as such, and especially as the body of doctrine held by 
the sect known by that name in America and England, 
that great German theologian had little sympathy. 
The superficial and unscriptural theology of American 
Universalism in particular did not appeal to such 
great minds as Dorner, Schliermacher and Tholuch, 
although Universalism finds some points in the writ- 
ings of such men which it draws upon to bolster up 


154 What after Death? 


its erroneous premises. Thus, while Tholuch was at 
first sympathetic toward Universalism before he really 
knew its teachings and discovered its negations and 
fallacies, and even entered into correspondence with 
T. J. Sawyer of New York, when he came to under- 
stand its real nature he not only disowned any con- 
nection with or sympathy for it, but he refused further 
correspondence with Mr. Sawyer. 


Exponents of Universalism quote also 1 Peter 3:19- 
20 and 4:6, about the so-called preaching to those in 
prison. This is one of Nitzsch’s favorite arguments 
in proof of a possible salvation after death. But that 
these passages are not at all applicable to the subject 
under immediate consideration, and therefore without 
any value for their contention, is shown in the chapter 
on Probationism. Indeed, not only are these passages 
fully discussed there, but the whole subject of an hypo- 
thetical future probation. Nothing, therefore, need 
be said here in addition to what is said there, except 
to answer the objections and arguments of those who 
in behalf of Universalism defend the theory of a uni- 
versal future probation. 


In this connection, therefore, we must cite the phil- 
osophic or ethical argument against endless future 
punishment; namely, that no limit in time for a pos- 
sible repentance and salvation can be put upon man 
as a free moral agent. ‘Therefore, it is contended, 
man’s will must necessarily be left free in the future 
world, so as to continue his identity and God-given 
personality, whether in a state of blessedness or of 
punishment; and hence he might before and even 
after the judgment—and perhaps must necessarily— 
choose for God and light and salvation. This argu- 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 155 


ment is based upon the false assumption, that man’s 
will is left free after death and after the judgment. 
On the contrary, in the future state the will of the 
condemned will be included in the soul’s subjugation, 
as is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 and Philip- 
pians 2:9-11, to be considered a little later in this 
chapter. The will which here in the state of grace 
wilfully refused to yield to the gracious will of a 
merciful Father, will there be subjugated to that in- 
finite will, leaving it impotent or helpless, so that God 
will be all in all. In fact, from the whole tenor of 
revelation, it appears that the moral freedom of lost 
souls will cease with death, and therefore necessarily 
their state of probation. 


This whole argument for universal salvation from 
the superabounding goodness of God is emphatically 
answered by the merciful and ever blessed Saviour 
Himself. The answer referred to is absolute and final, 
and whatever interpretation of the contents may be 
given by the objector, does not in the least affect its 
own unanswerableness. The Saviour solemnly declares 
that the sin and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
will not be forgiven unto men; and to make this state- 
ment all the more emphatic, He adds, “neither in this 
world, nor in that which is to come” (Matt. 12:32). 
Thus, though forgiveness is mercifully granted in this 
life to the penitent sinner—but to the penitent alone— 
for any other sins, yet for the sin against the Holy 
Ghost no forgiveness is granted to the sinner, who 
can no longer even be penitent. Hence even upon the 
preposterous supposition that all other sinners would 
some time during their lives become penitent and ac- 
cept Christ’s sacrifice and thus receive forgiveness and 
be saved, there would yet even then remain these sin- 


156 What after Death? 


ners against the Holy Ghost, who would continue for- 
ever to remain under the condemnation of God. With 
reference to this sin it is emphatically said, ““As touch- 
ing those who were once enlightened and tasted of 
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the 
Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and 
the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, 
it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; 
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:4-6). 
Again, “If we sin wilfully after that we have received 
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more 
a sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:26). See also 1 John 
5:16; Luke 12:10; Mark 3:29. When these passages 
are read in the light of Matthew 25:41-46, together 
with what is said under EHternalism, the futility of 
this argument for a universal restoration is seen in 
all its cumulative force. 


2 ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST’S ATONEMENT 


Quite a number of writers hold that the atonement 
of Christ is so all-sufficient that all must necessarily 
ultimately be saved. And in thus ostensibly holding 
to the atonement as their ground of hope for a uni- 
versal salvation or restoration, these men seemingly 
approach more nearly to the true Scriptural view 
than do the rest, but without making allowance for a 
possible rejection or non-appropriation of that atone- 
ment on the part of the individual. In all fairness it 
should, however, be said that but few of those who 
appeal to this argument in defense of a universal sal- 
vation could, or would want to, be classed among 
Universalists. They cannot accept Universalism with 
its arbitrary negations and its fallacies. They are 

4 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 157 


mostly men of other and more orthodox religious per- 
suasions, who fondly entertain the hope that perhaps 
somehow all will eventually be saved by the sacrifice 
of Christ. Many of these men seem to be quite ortho- 
dox in general, yet on this particular point they allow 
truth to give way to sentiment and even try to defend 
their position by an appeal to other accepted truth. 
Because of its apparent Scripturalness, this defense 
should in all fairness be somewhat fully given and 
should be very carefully examined. And, indeed, this 
is all the more necessary because it is very subtle and 
consequently misleading. 


As a philosophic hypothesis, it is held that, in the 
last analysis,.all men are equal sinners before God 
and by nature equally lost. Therefore, it is contended, 
a divinely proffered method of redemption should, in 
its application, necessarily have equal effects upon all, 
and result in equal salvation. If this were not so, it 
is said, then God’s purposes would be attained in some 
and lost in others, which would be a contradiction and 
therefore a divine impossibility. But the efficacy of 
the operation of God’s grace in the sinner’s conversion 
is not to be measured by the relative ratios of God’s 
power to men’s sins; but it is dependent upon men’s 
faith or willingness to accept that grace. This power 
in man of rejecting or accepting is what makes him a 
free personality, and without this his very glory as 
man would be lost. This philosophic hypothesis must 
therefore be uncompromisingly rejected as false and 
totally inapplicable in the resolution of the problem 
of human salvation. 

The Scripture passages cited in defense of the view, 
that Christ’s atonement is so all-sufficient that all men 
must necessarily be saved, are, of course, those that 


158 What after Death? 


teach the central doctrine of the atonement. Thus 
Genesis 22:18 is cited, ‘And in thy seed shall all the 
nations of the earth be blessed.” But this passage 
expresses only what all fully accept; namely, that all 
the nations as nations shall receive the Gospel and of 
its blessings, and that all who believe shall be saved. 
The Gospel shall not be limited to one nation, as was 
the Mosaic law, but no nation is to be excluded from 
its benefits. The law was for the Jewish nation in 
preparation for the coming Messiah; but the Gospel 
of that Messiah, prophesied to arise among the Jews, 
shall be for all nations. And equally inapplicable as 
an argument is Genesis 3:15. In appealing to the 
New Testament for further proof as to this point, it 
is held that the expression in John 1:29 is all-inclusive, 
“Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin 
of the world!’’ The same is said of Romans 5:18, “So 
then as through one trespass the judgment came unto 
all men to condemnation; even so through one act of 
righteousness the free gift came unto all men to jus- 
tification of life’; and of 1 Corinthians 15:22, “‘As 
in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made 
alive.”’ In the last quotation, it is, of course, the bodily 
resurrection that is spoken of. Again, in 2 Corinthians 
5:14-15, Christ is said to have “died for all,” and it 
is therefore contended that all must be saved. In like 
manner, 1 Timothy 2:6 is quoted, “Who gave himself 
a ransom for all,” as well as 1 Timothy 4:10, where 
God is said to be the ‘‘Saviour of all men, especially 
of them that believe.” Another citation is Hebrews 
2:9, where Christ is spoken as of tasting of “‘death 
for every man,” as also is 1 John 2:2, “He is the pro- 
itiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also 
for the whole world.” 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 159 


When considered by themselves apart from their 
contexts and without the light of the analogy of Scrip- 
ture, these passages would seem to afford some plaus- 
ible evidence for universal salvation. But Scripture 
passages must not thus be studied and interpreted 
apart from their contexts, which constitute their 
proper setting, and therefore their only rightful basis 
of interpretation. And such passages thus separated, 
dissociated or isolated, can surely never be so inter- 
preted as to be in conflict with the more explicit teach- 
ings of Scripture elsewhere, or with the whole analogy 
of Scripture. The fact is that the passages cited, when 
read in the light of their contexts and of other ex- 
planatory passages, only bring into bold relief the 
great truth of the universal provision for the salva- 
tion of all men. This provision is indeed so universal 
as to be all-inclusive, but only upon the oft-repeated 
simple condition of faith in, or acceptance of, that 
provision in the atoning Saviour. This condition is 
definitely expressed in John 3:16, ‘God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- 
soever believeth on him should not perish, but have 
eternal life.” 


The absurdity of wresting a passage of Scripture 
from its context is clearly seen in the case of John 
3:17, “For God sent not the Son into the world to 
judge the world; but that the world should be saved 
through him.” Considered alone, this verse can in- 
deed be pressed into service by Universalism, as teach- 
ing that all men must be saved, as this would seem 
here even to be emphasized by the very antithetical 
form of the statement, in explicitly expressing the 
purpose for which Christ came. But, surely, such 
merely apparent meaning is just as emphatically cor- 


160 What after Death? 


rected in the very next verse which also clearly sets 
forth the condition above noted: ‘‘He that believeth 
on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been 
judged already, because he hath not believed on the 
name of the only begotten Son of God.” This condi- 
tion is also very emphatically stated in Mark 16:16, 
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 
he that disbelieveth shall be condemned”; in Luke 13:8, 
“Hixcept ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” ; 
in John 6:40, “This is the will of my Father, that 
every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, 
should have eternal life.” See also John 5:24; 6:47; 
20:31; Romans 5:1; Galatians 2:16. 


Indeed, what right has Universalism even to appeal 
to those passages of Scripture which speak of Christ 
as Saviour or which teach the doctrine of the atone- 
ment? ‘To be sure, the above passages are referred to 
as rather the defense of those who are not professed 
Universalists, as we noted in introducing this argu- 
ment. But Universalism itself also appeals to these 
passages because of the apparent all-inclusiveness of 
their language, however it may try to explain, or ex- 
plain away, their manifest teaching of the atonement. 

It must not be forgotten that according to Univer- 
salism man is not a fallen being and that Christ’s death 
was therefore not necessary to salvation. But even 
Universalists must admit that the Bible teaches that 
Christ died for man. He surely did not come and die 
to save us from physical death, as it is a patent fact 
that all must die. Nor did He come and die to save 
us from sin to be committed hereafter, for they also 
admit that there will be no sin in the future world. 
And if it be held that He came to save from sinning 
here, then we point to the fact that no man has ever 


Will All Finally Be Saved. 161 


been without sin on this side of death. Again, if 
Universalists contend that Christ came and died to 
save from the effects of sin, we ask, How then can 
they hold that the sinner himself is punished either 
altogether in this life or for a limited time hereafter? 
Christ’s death would thus be made of no effect. In- 
deed, much depends upon the definition of sin, for to 
Universalism sin is not sin in the sense of Scripture. 
Hence salvation and the Saviour are not the salvation 
and the Saviour of Scripture. Christ truly died for 
all, but His death saves only those who accept His 
atoning sacrifice. All are potentially atoned for, but 
not all are actually saved, because of the rejection of 
the atonement by some. If Christ had not died all 
would remain spiritually dead and be eternally dead 
and lost; but in Christ’s death all that are in Christ 
by faith are saved and live. 

This argument for universal salvation from the all- 
sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, has, therefore, no 
weight. Christ’s atonement is indeed all-sufficient, the 
provision is indeed ample; but this of itself will save 
no one apart from the condition. 


3 ARGUMENT FROM THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD 


Another argument in defense of this doctrine of 
universal restoration is based upon the omnipotence, 
or ultimate triumph, of God and good. It is contended 
that, if God is omnipotent, He could have created man 
for eternal happiness, and that, if He did not so create 
man, He could not be perfectly good and just. So also 
it is contended that if God could not have created man 
for eternal happiness, then He would not be omnipo- 
tent. Therefore it is held as a necessary conclusion, 


162 What after Death? 


that as God is apparently both omnipotent and per- 
fectly good, He must have created man for eternal 
happiness. 


Such reasoning, upon its surface, seems rather 
plausible; but upon further examination, it is seen to 
be very subtly fallacious and altogether inapplicable 
as an argument for universal salvation. In the first 
place, it is very true that God did thus create man 
for eternal happiness. The creation in itself was 
therefore not at fault, nor were God’s omnipotence 
and goodness compromised or violated in that crea- 
tion. But man’s created potential or essential happi- 
ness was marred by the entrance of the accident of 
sin. Therefore, as this is not part of man’s created 
or essential nature, his creation was not at fault nor 
can God’s goodness and omnipotence be impeached. 
The fact is, moreover, universally acknowledged that 
man in this world is not altogether happy or what he 
was unquestionably designed to be, and yet even few 
Universalists would therefore argue against the fact 
of God’s omnipotence and goodness. Hence their argu- 
ment that future happiness or salvation for all must 
necessarily be involved in God’s infinite power and 
goodness, is utterly without point or force. 


In the second place, who is to be judge even as to 
the truth of the proposition above given to prove that 
man must necessarily be created for happiness and 
that therefore nobody could be eternally punished and 
Jost? By what or whose standard of goodness and 
power can any one thus dogmatize about limitations 
in the power and goodness of the infinite and abso- 
lute God? Shall we bring the unlimited God down to 
the limitations of man and ascribe to Him either weak- 
ness or evil? It would be well for the objector to read 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 168 


Paul’s striking words, as recorded in Romans 9:14-24: 

“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness 
with God? God forbid. . .. ‘Oman, who art 
thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed 
say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me 
thus?” ete. 


To strengthen their argument these men quote St. 
St. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26: 
“Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have 
abolished all rule and all authority and power. For 
He must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under 
his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is 
death.” Even the great Schiiermacher quotes this 
passage against the doctrine of endless punishment. 
Another favorite quotation is Phillippians 2:9-11: 
“Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave 
unto him the name which is above every name; that 
in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven and things on earth and things under the 
earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” To 
the same end also is quoted Isaiah 45:23: “By my- 
self have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my 
mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto 
me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” 

Of these passages we may briefly say that they in- 
deed point to the ultimate triumph of Christ and of 
His truth. But it is to be a teiumph, and as such it 
means the supreme exaltation of Christ; but these 
passages do not say that this triumph is to consist in 
the salvation of all men, nor in the utter annthilation 
of all evil and of the enemies of the Lord and of His 
truth. No, it is clear that this triumph is to be one of 


164 What after Death? 


subjugation, as the expression “under his feet” clearly 
implies. Indeed, the very devils in hell bow at the 
name of Jesus and confess ‘“‘that Jesus Christ is Lord,” 
even as we are told, “The demons also believe, and 
shudder” (James 2:19). But there is a vast difference 
between this historic faith of devils and the saving 
faith of believers as children of God. So likewise is 
there a vast difference between the bowing of the knee 
at the name of Jesus and the confessing “that Jesus 
Christ is Lord,” on the part of Christ’s enemies, in- 
cluding even the devils, and on the part of God’s chil- 
dren who accept Christ’s salvation. In the final tri- 
umph of Christ and His truth, all will indeed bow the 
knee at the name of Jesus, and all will confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord. Those who have willingly sub- 
mitted here and accepted His proffered grace, will 
count it infinite joy to bow and confess yonder; those 
who have refused to submit and accept His grace here 
will in compelled subjugation have to bow and confess 
hereafter. So of all the fallen angels. But in the 
case of both the saved and the lost it must necessarily 
be to the glory of God the Father, the supreme Consum- 
mator. No enemies of God will any longer assert 
themselves against Him nor against Christ and His 
completed and perfected kingdom. The resisting power 
of evil will forever be suppressed. The power of God 
will be supreme in all things. But this does not in 
the least imply the ultimate salvation, or annihilation, 
of the lost, nor the absolute destruction of all evil. 
Indeed, as to Isaiah 45:23-24, St. Paul clearly refers 
this passage to the last judgment of both the righteous 
and the wicked, in the following words: ‘We shall 
all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is 
written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 165 


shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God” 
(Rom. 14:10-11). 

Vainly have Universalists attempted to explain away 
this very clearly revealed final suppression of the power 
of evil and the subjugation of sinners. Thus Dr. 
Marion T. Shutter even suggests, “The rhetoric of 
destruction applied to sinners may be interpreted as 
meaning their destruction as sinners, not as souls” 
(Justice and Mercy, p. 218) ; that is, by making them 
as rebels loyal. A passage quoted on this line of de- 
fense is Colossians 1:20: “And through him to re- 
concile all things unto himself, having made peace 
through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, 
whether things upon the earth, or things in the heav- 
ens.” This passage, however, rather emphasizes the 
universality of the Gospel and points forward especially 
to its universal spread. It certainly does not mean 
that all will accept that Gospel offer and be saved, as 
the succeeding verses clearly set forth: “And you 
(Colossians), being in time past alienated and enemies 
in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he re- 
conciled in the body of his flesh through death . 
if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and 
steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the 
gospel which ye heard,” etc. (Col. 1:21-23). Here this 
reconciliation or salvation is explicitly limited by con- 
ditions showing that some are not reconciled or saved; 
and the condition is clearly set forth; namely, continu- 
ing ‘In the faith, grounded and steadfast” and abiding 
in the “hope of the gospel” which they had heard. If 
these conditions had not been complied with, they 
would not thus have been reconciled or saved. This 
passage, in the light of its context, therefore, instead 
of making for universal salvation, is really seen to be 


166 What after Death? 


for a salvation limited by faith in Christ; and the clear 
implication is that all who are without that faith will 
be lost. | 


Nor do Peter’s words in Acts 3:21, concerning a 
final “restoration of all things,” constitute an argu- 
ment for the point we are considering, especially in 
the light of a multitude of other passages to the con- 
trary. This passage of a general restoration does not 
imply the salvation of every individual soul. Indeed, 
that it is not in the least meant to teach such salvation 
is very evident from verse 23, ‘‘And it shall be, that 
every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet 
(Christ), shall be utterly destroyed from among the 
people.” And if it be contended that this means sim- 
ply death here with the possibility of salvation here- 
after, or even perhaps of annihilation, we would refer 
the reader to the chapters on Probationism and Anni- 
hilationism for an answer. There will indeed be a 
“restoration of all things,’ or a final consummation. 
But this will be a consummation of God’s purposes and 
hence of all the prophecies concerning Christ as King 
and Lord and concerning His Kingdom; and these 
prophecies include not only the salvation of believers 
and the glorious triumph of Christ and of His truth, 
but also the subjugation of all His foes and the vindi- 
cation of His unerring justice. 

Of Old Testament passages often quoted on this 
point, such as Psalm 22:27; 86:9; etc., it is hardly 
necessary for us to speak, after having shown the pas- 
sages of the fuller New Testament revelation, often 
cited, to be clearly against it. These Old Testament 
passages must be considered in the light of the New 
Testament, as prophetic of the universal sway of the 
Gospel of Christ among the nations as nations, not 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 167 


among individuals as individuals, before the final con- 
summation. Indeed, in those days the emphasis was 
placed upon nations rather than upon individuals com- 
posing the nations. Though the ends of the earth or 
the nations are thus spoken of as some time turning 
unto the Lord and worshiping, that does not mean 
that all the individuals will do so; and, even if doing 
so, if that were possible, that they would all finally 
be saved. And when read in the light of what has 
been shown to be the teaching of the New Testament 
—aindeed in the light of both law and Gospel—these 
Old Testament passages lose all force as secre for 
universal salvation. 

This argument from the omnipotence and ultimate 
triumph of God and good is thus shown to have no 
value for the contention that all men will be saved. 
It really lends its weight of evidence to the side of 
the doctrine of endless future punishment for the 
wicked, so explicitly taught elsewhere. 


4 ARGUMENT FROM SUPPOSED PHILOSOPHIC NECESSITY 


There are some thinkers who contend that whatever 
happens does so because it was to be, and that there- 
fore whatever is, is right. And indeed many who are 
not professed determinists would nevertheless fain 
hide their life behind such a doctrine. According to 
philosophic determinism, all things, including human 
acts of good and evil, must be considered as the re-. 
sults or effects of the operations of irresistible laws. 
Necessity, not free will, is thus held to determine what 
we ordinarily call acts of sin. Such acts of sin could, 
therefore, not be punished by a just God; and hence 
all must be saved. 

This contention is, however, so manifestly in con- 


168 What after Death? 


flict with even our own consciousness of voluntary 
choice between good and evil, that it hardly requires 
an answer. The history of the individual, as well as 
that of the race, is a history of acts resulting from 
conscious free choice, or expressions of free will. And 
the data of consciousness, and of history and experi- 
ence, as to moral freedom, are amply confirmed by the 
Word of God. -The very first account of man in Eden 
is one involving a choice between good and evil (Gen. 
2:16-17; 3:1-24). This freedom of choice and action 
is everywhere either taught or implied, and is es- 
pecially apparent in the many warnings, as well as in 
the promises, of Scripture. This argument has, there- 
fore, no validity. 


5 ARGUMENT FROM THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


Some of the exponents of Universalism contend that 
even the justice of God is against an endless future 
punishment and that it necessarily implies the ulti- 
mate salvation of all people. 

The contention that God’s justice could not be sus- 
tained if some were saved and others were eternally 
lost and punished, and that such punishment of the 
latter would not even satisfy that justice, is wholly 
without foundation. Who has risen to the heights 
where these subjects are native, so that he can reason 
from absolutely known premises to unerring conclu- 
sions? Yes, there is One who has thus risen, or rather 
who came from and returned to that transcendent 
sphere where all premises not only are accessible and 
clear for unerring deductions, but where premises and 
conclusions blend, to the enraptured immediate vision, 
into perfect oneness. That One is He who Himself is 
the Light, Jesus the Christ of God, who was and is 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 169 


and forever will be the same (Heb. 18:8), God the 
Son, blessed forever. And His revelation is emphatic 
that some men will thus be lost because of their own 
wilful rejection of His grace, and therefore will be 
punished, while others will be saved. Nor is their 
acquiescence in their own punishment necessary to es- 
tablish its justice; and yet even that their punishment 
is just they must necessarily acknowledge, and this is 
virtual acquiescence. This argument, therefore, falls 
by its own weight. 

It is further held that the punishment should be as, 
or in proportion to, the crime or sin, and therefore 
that an eternal punishment for a temporal sin would 
be in conflict with the justice of God. It is, moreover, 
contended that, even waiving the principle that the 
punishment should exactly correspond to the crime, it 
would nevertheless be unjust for the duration of fu- 
ture punishment to be the same for all the wicked, 
as would necessarily be the case if it were eternal. 
This equality of duration of future punishment for 
great and small sinners, it is thus held, would be un- 
just, because supposedly not an equitable distribution 
of penalties. 

It is even contended by some that adequate pun- 
ishment is already meted out in this life, and that it 
would therefore be in conflict with the justice of God 
to inflict any punishment hereafter. This, it is 
claimed, is taught in Proverbs 11:31, ‘“‘Behold, the ' 
righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; how much 
more the wicked and the sinner!” But this passage 
would just as much, upon such an interpretation, in- 
dicate that the righteous would have no happiness 
hereafter as that the wicked and the sinner would re- 
ceive no punishment. Then, too, it is a fact seen on 


170 What after Death? 


every side, that if there is any inequality of trial, suf- 
fering and sorrow, between the righteous and the 
wicked in this world, it is clearly often in favor of 
the wicked. What then becomes of the contention 
that the wicked receive their punishment here? How 
could the so-called punishment of the righteous here, 
which in many cases would have to be regarded as 
greater than that of the wicked, be justified? Indeed, 
this very inequality is one of the strongest presump- 
tive evidences that the wicked will receive their pun- 
ishment hereafter. Justice and equity would thus de- 
mand the punishment of the wicked hereafter. Surely, 
if they are not punished here—or as that punishment 
must be regarded as not equitable—their punishment 
hereafter must necessarily follow from the very law 
of justice to which exponents of Universalism appeal. 
Therefore, this argument from the justice of God is 
clearly against Universalism upon the very basis of 
the contention of its own advocates. 


If, moreover, all punishment were meted out in this 
world, then the atoning death of Christ would not only 
be of none effect, but it would have been superfluous 
and in reality a contradictory absurdity. For, if ade- 
quate punishment were thus meted out to the sinner, 
it would have been unjust, and even absurd, also for 
Christ to die for those sins. The same would even be 
true if such adequate punishment were inflicted here- 
after until justice would be satisfied and the sinner 
finally saved. Indeed, if all would thus have to satisfy 
justice by suffering punishment, then the term salva- 
tion would not even apply. Hence it is that Univer- 
salists have little difficulty to deny the precious doc- 
trine of the atonement. 

It is thus seen that future and even endless punish- 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 171 


ment is not only not in conflict with the justice of 
God, as Universalists claim, but that it is exactly what 
that justice demands. We shall therefore pass on to 
-a consideration of another argument used in defense 
of Universalism. 


6 ARGUMENT FROM SUPPOSED SYMPATHY OF THE 
SAVED WITH THE LOST 


Some men hold that all must be saved in order that 
the blessed may be happy and without any feeling of 
sorrow for any, especially for those near of kin, who 
might be lost, and even perhaps partly by their neg- 
lect or sin. Even the philosophic theologian Schlier- 
macher contended that the sympathy of the saved with 
the lost is against the possibility of an endless pun- 
ishment. But this is to read into man’s existence in 
the future world the limited social relationships and 
human passions that prevail in the present sense- 
bound physical world. 

The Saviour’s answer to the Sadducees should sug- 
gest for this argument a sufficient answer: ‘‘The sons 
of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but 
they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, 
and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, 
nor are given in marriage: for neither can they die 
any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and 
are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 
20:34-36). Thus there will be no distribution into 
families in the future world, so necessary in this life. 
Physical family instincts will give way in the blessed, 
by immediate understanding, to full acquiescence in 
the doings of Him who is unerringly just. As re- 
deemed and glorified children of God, they will directly 
know His will and justice to be unerring. And, there- 


172 What after Death? 


fore, not only will His will be done in heaven as it 
should be done on earth, but it will also be accepted by 
all there with joy and rejoicing to the glory of God 
and the profounder happiness and blessedness of His 
saints. Moved by what might be called a perfectly 
enlightened and sanctified higher patriotism, their un- 
divided devotion will be to the Kingdom of their per- 
fectly holy King and Lord and to His unerring right- 
eousness. Thus all ties between the saved and the 
lost will be broken in their separation into, and abode 
in, separate spheres. This argument from sympathy 
is thus seen to have no validity. 


7 ARGUMENT FROM THE VERY NATURE OF SCRIPTURE 
UPON THIS POINT 


Some believers in universal restoration take refuge 
behind the further contention that the Scriptures 
rather state the matter of future punishment hypo- 
thetically, as a mere possibility, but that after all none 
will finally be lost. Indeed, some eminent men who 
are not professed Universalists have appealed to this 
argument in trying to establish at least the possibility 
of universal salvation. 

In line with this contention apparently is Dr. Dor- 
ner’s interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, 
such as Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10 and 15 (Future 
State, p.117). He declares that all this ‘‘affirms noth- 
ing of persons, but of the principle.’ Much as we 
honor Dorner as a philosophic theologian, this reason- 
ing is not even reasonable. To make these passages 
refer to principles instead of to persons, is to divert 
them from their very intended purpose—as a warn- 
ing to sinners, not to principles. A principle is in- 
deed implied or involved, but this would here not even 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 173 


have existence apart from persons to whom the prin- 
ciple is applied and with whom it is associated. In- 
deed, to say that these passages affirm “nothing of 
persons, but of the principle,” is to say that the prin- 
ciple is to receive a “mark on his forehead,” to “drink 
of the wine of the wrath of God,” and to be “‘tormented 
with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy 
angels, and in the presence of the Lamb,” and to have 
the smoke of its torment ascend ‘‘for ever and ever,” 
and to “have no rest day and night” (Rev. 14:9-11) ; 
and to be “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone” 
and to be “tormented day and night for ever and ever” 
(Rev. 20:10). We have indeed made an extreme ap- 
plication of such an interpretation by applying it to 
the parts quoted; but in so doing the interpretation 
will be seen all the more clearly to be untenable. 

It is thus seen that the above passages unmistakably 
refer to persons—wicked men and the devil. Then, 
too, in the historico-prophetic form of the statements 
(for they are statements) in Revelation 20:10 and 15, 
the devil and lost human beings are spoken of in the 
past tense (Greek aorist) to have thus been cast into 
the lake of fire. This historic form of a prophecy or 
future fact does not only imply its possibility, but it 
undeniably indicates its unfailing future actuality. 
Thus even this argument for universal restoration is 
found to be based upon what has no existence in real- 
ity. And, therefore, to yield to the evident and em- 
phatic teaching of Scripture and the dictates of un- 
prejudiced human reason against universal salvation, 
is not only the only alternative, but it is even honor- 
able because it is at-least consistent. 

To contend, morever, that all lost human beings, 
and even the devil, will ultimately be delivered after 


174 What after Death? 


suffering due punishment for all their sins, would not 
only be minimizing the gravity of sin in general, but it 
would be magnifying the sinner’s own ability to atone 
even for a sin which the omnipotent God Himself is 
emphatically said not to forgive (Matt. 12:31-32). 
With all due respect to the memory of the elder Dor- 
ner, who sugested such a possible seif-atonement for 
even the unpardonable sin, by enduring punishment 
for an indefinite time hereafter (Future State, p. 119), 
we cannot too emphatically say that he was here re- 
sorting to mere philosophic speculation, instead of ac- 
cepting at its face value or most evident meaning, the 
Word of Him who alone speaks with authority on this 
transcendent subject. And yet even the conclusions 
of proud philosophy, when pressed a little further for 
a final answer, are against Dorner’s own position, as 
we have shown under Probationism. We shall there- 
fore leave this argument for universal salvation as 
sufficiently answered; and in this answer even the 
endlessness of the punishment of the unrepentant sin- 
ner is already implied. 


8 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY AND TRADITION 


Another element in the defense of the theory of 
universal salvation is what might be termed the his- 
toric or traditional argument, or the argument from 
authority—chiefly from the writings of the early 
Church. ae 

This was one of the favorite arguments of Dean 
Farrar. Among many who have adopted this argu- 
ment, Dr. Shutter accepts it with all its unhistoric 
assumptions. These men claim that the doctrine of 
2 possible universal salvation was the accepted belief 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 175 


in the early Church. To prove their contention 
they quote from certain of the early Church Fathers, 
and cite statements to this effect from works on the 
early history of the Church. They thus attempt to 
show that the doctrine of endless punishment was not 
generally accepted even till the beginning of the sixth 
century. They contend that Tertullian of Carthage 
(fl. 200) was the first who believed or taught this 
doctrine. Upon this point Dr. Shutter, after quoting 
from Farrar and Thayer in proof of his contention, 
says: “Tertullian enjoyed the unenviable notoriety 
of introducing into the thought of Christendom the 
dogma which has ever since been the disgrace of the- 
ology and the stumbling-block of thousands of honest 
souls. Bear in mind, and never forget, that it was 
Tertullian and not Jesus who lighted the fires of hell 
that the Church has preached for centuries. It was 
the furious and vengeful African and not the gentle 
Nazarene who invented the creed of terror and de- 
spair”’ (Justice and Mercy, pp. 108-109). For an an- 
swer from the Scriptures that the statement that Ter- 
tullian and not Jesus taught the doctrine of endless 
punishment, see Chapter on Hternalism, where Christ’s 
authorship is clearly demonstrated, Shutter’s statement 
to the contrary notwithstanding. 


In trying to trace and state the circumstances under 
which the dogma of endless punishment took its rise, 
with quotations from several writers, Dr. Shutter adds, 
“Thus hand in hand went the exclusiveness of the 
Church in this world and the doctrine of unending 
retribution in the next. Bigotry here and hell here- 
after were inseparable companions” (Justice and 
Mercy, p. 118). Then he even tries to trace the in- 
crease of insanity, the rise of asceticism, persecutions 


176 | What after Death? 


for heresy and the granting of indulgences, to this 
doctrine. 

This contention that the theory of universal salva- 
tion was the accepted belief of the early Church, is 
so contrary to the general opinion on this subject, 
that at first acquaintance it affords not a little occasion 
for surprise. And indeed one is naturally surprised 
to find at least a man like Farrar to have held such a 
view. 


What is true of this doctrine of future punishment, 
might be shown to be true of practically every great 
doctrine of Christianity, in the history of the early 
Church. The various Scriptural tenets of Christen- 
dom were first given form or expression when they 
were assailed or repudiated. The great fundamentals 
of the faith had been the common property of the 
Church from the days of the apostles. They were at 
first tacitly accepted and believed without any creedal 
form or statement. But when they were assailed by 
false teachers and perverters of the truth, then great 
men arose in their defense; and, by an accumulation of 
proofs from the Scriptures, which they marshalled 
with a logic that was inexorable, they once for all 
established such tenets and removed them from the 
field of further controversy. Thus, after having been 
the almost unconscious possession of the universal 
Church from the days of the apostles, by the very 
necessity occasioned by these attacks upon the truth 
tenet after tenet of the faith was made to rise out of 
the Seriptures in an embodied or creedal form, to re- 
main thenceforth the permanent conscious possession 
of universal Christendom. This was true of the doc- 
trines of the incarnation, the deity of Christ, the 
Trinity, etc., and perhaps only less apparently so of 


Will All Finally Be Saved? rae AT 


that of future punishment. Indeed, it did not require 
a General Council to settle once for all this doctrine of 
endless punishment, as was the case with some other 
doctrines. It would therefore seem that it was more 
generally accepted than were those other doctrines and 
that the attacks upon this doctrine came chiefly from 
a local source; namely, from the Alexandrian School, 
as it came from Clement, Origen, and partly from the 
two Gregories. In further illustration of our state- 
ment, we could call attention to the historic develop- 
ment of the oecumenical creeds, and especially to that 
of the Apostles’ Creed, whose completed form is the re- 
sult of a growth during about four centuries of con- 
flict between truth and error (Jacobs: Book of Con- 
cord, Vol. II, pp. 16-19). Every phrase of this creed 
marks an epoch in the confirmation, and conscious 
bodying forth into tangible form, of truths that had 
tacitly, yea almost unconsciously, been held since the 
days of the apostles as the unmistakable teachings of 
Christ and His blessed apostles. 

Thus these quotations on future punishment from 
Tertullian and others of the early Church, by those 
who would defend the doctrine of Universalism, instead 
of proving that the doctrine of universal salvation had 
thitherto been the accepted belief of the Church, prove 
_ the very opposite. They show that the endlessness of 
future punishment was so universally accepted as the 
teaching of the New Testament that it had not thither- 
to been attacked with sufficient force to necessitate a 
reply. But at last even this tacitly accepted doctrine 
was boldly challenged, and consequently a defense had 
to be forthcoming; and that defense was more or less 
often and forcibly reiterated from time to time till all 
opposition had again apparently ceased. It then re- 


178 What after Death? 


mained a part of that glorious heritage of the early 
Church to which belong the great oecumenical sym- 
bols, or as single tenets of faith the doctrines of the 
incarnation, the vicarious sacrifice of the Saviour, the 
deity of Christ and the glorious Trinity. Indeed, there 
is probably no truth or its statement that was not at 
some time challenged or denied in the ancient Church, 
and that, by the very strange law of the repeating 
of history, is not also by some denied in this golden 
age of scientific progress. And from this general rule 
such doctrines as those of the vicarious sacrifice and 
the atonement are not exempt also in our day. And, 
of course, the doctrine of the endlessness of future 
punishment must not be expected to escape. 


During the middle ages the doctrine of future pun- 
ishment was so universally accepted as hardly to call 
forth any significant objection to it. This is so well 
known as to make it unnecessary for us to present any 
arguments in proof of this fact. Indeed, this is even 
acknowledged by the exponents of Universalism. And 
it is surely not necessary for us to prove that the Re- 
formers of the sixteenth century in their fresh and 
searching study of the Word of God undeniably under- 
stood it to teach the doctrine of future punishment. 
And that was an age of searching the Scriptures and 
its deeper meaning such as the world had not seen 
before. Nor has it seen its equal since. And this 
teaching of the Reformers has been the accepted doc- 
trine of Protestantism ever since. Nor has unremitted 
study of the Word on the part of the host of trained 
and scholarly Protestant investigators from that day 
to this in the least altered this tenet of the faith; but 
it has rather the more firmly established it. But a 
few so-called advanced thinkers who have pretended 


Will All Finally Be Saved? tg 


to be wise above what is written and above the un- 
mistakable results of the combined researches of 
Christian scholarship, have arisen and have become 
the founders or leaders of sects that have not only 
deviated from the truth on this doctrine, but also on 
many related doctrines. 


Thus throughout the centuries of Christian history 
the Scriptures have almost universally been understood 
to teach on this subject what is its very evident mean- 
ing; namely, future punishment for the wicked with- 
out the possibility of salvation. Belief in future pun- 
ishment for the wicked has always been associated 
with belief in future blessedness for the righteous; 
and the one has been as fully established an article of 
faith as has been the other. 


If all would be saved—and we speak with reverence 
—the Bible would either be untrue, or it would be the 
most misleading or deceptive book ever written. And 
what would the inference have to be as to Christ and 
His apostles and their ultimate motives? The Bible 
has almost universally been understood to teach a fu- 
ture punishment, and one that is endless. If this is 
what it is meant to teach, and if it were not so, then 
the Bible would manifestly be untrue or untruthful. 
And if its declarations are not meant to teach that— 
that is, if the teachings of Universalism were true— 
then, with but few exceptions, the whole Christian 
Church in all these centuries would have been deceived 
or misled by it. Even a civil document or a statute 
law, if it thus led to a misunderstanding of its con- 
tents, would be summarily repealed or changed so as 
to be sufficiently perspicuous to be correctly under- 
stood. Not so did Christ change the universally ac- 
cepted teaching in the Old Testament about future 


180 What after Death? 


punishment. This conclusively proves that the ac- 
cepted interpretation was correct, as is, of course, very 
clearly shown in His emphatic restatement of its teach- 
ing as popularly understood. 

It would thus be apparent that if Universalism were 
true, Christ and the Scriptures would have to be re- 
garded as false. But, God forbid! Universalism must 
necessarily be rejected as erroneous by all who ac- 
knowledge Christ and His Holy Word. The manifest 
inference, of course, is that the very evident teaching 
of the whole Bible, which the Christian world has al- 
ways accepted, is correct and true. There is thus a 
future punishment, and one from which there is no 
salvation, for the wicked, for those who wilfully re- 
ject God’s proffered grace in the atoning sacrifice of 
the eternal Son. 


V UNIVERSALISM FURTHER DISPROVED BY 
ITS GROUNDLESSNESS AND INHERENT 
WEAKNESSES 


We have now met the arguments for Universalism 
that have been advanced by its exponents and sym- 
pathizers in defense of universal salvation. In doing 
so we believe that we have already shown the theory 
to be untenable as an article of faith. And having 
shown the arguments in proof of this theory to have 
no validity, further discussion in defense of the actual 
teachings of the Scriptures upon this subject would 
seem to be unnecessary. In the absence of proof to 
the contrary, the generally accepted teaching of God’s 
Word must stand. But in order still further to show 
the untenableness of Universalism, and perhaps to off- 
set other objections against the belief of the evangel- 
ical Churches on this subject, we shall here add some 


Will Ali Finally Be Saved? 181 


further points of a more direct and positive nature in 
proof of this generally accepted article of faith. 


1 UNIVERSALISM IN CONFLICT WITH BOTH CONSCIOUS- 
NESS AND SCRIPTURE 


The theory of universal salvation is in conflict with 
the universal consciousness of the race. The:heart of 
man everywhere instinctively feels that future, and 
indeed eternal, punishment is a terrible reality. His 
conscience makes him cry in agony for a means of 
escape from its terrors. Where man is in ignorance 
of the true means of escape through the great divine 
Sacrifice, he invents sacrifices:of his own to ease his 
conscience and to appease what his own darkened 
understanding bodies forth as God. As by an inborn 
impelling need of light and salvation from impending 
doom, he would fain lift his heart to God and light 
and salvation and peace. 

This universal instinct of the human heart is amply 
confirmed or corroborated in the multiplied explicit 
teachings of Scripture concerning the reality of both 
a place and a state of punishment in the future world, 
as has been clearly shown. It is also confirmed by 
implication even in God’s promises in the Bible. These 
are always associated with specified conditions, disre- 
garding which means rejection by that same merciful, 
but equally just, God, and certain punishment. This 
fact is even implied in such sayings of the Saviour as 
the beatitudes. Thus in the first beatitude (Matt. 
5:3) it is clearly implied that those who are not poor 
in spirit are not blessed, for theirs is not the kingdom 
of heaven, as is also explicitly stated in Matthew 18:3. 
So those that are pure in heart shall not see God (Matt. 
5:8), as is also elsewhere taught directly. Thus all the 


182. What after Death? 


rich promises of the Gospel are stated with unmis- 
takable conditions. 

The very greatness and richness of God’s promises 
make it all the greater sin to reject them; and there- 
fore they all the more imply a just punishment. The 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “A man 
that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without com- 
passion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how 
much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged 
worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, 
and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith 
he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done de- 
spite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that 
said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. 
And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a 
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” 
(Heb. 10:28-31). The same truth is also very em- 
phatically expressed by Christ, as follows: “I say 
unto you, It shall be more tolerable in that day for 
Sodom, than for that city,” etc. (Luke 10:12-15). See 
also parallel passages, and Luke 11 :31-82. 


2 CONCESSIONS OF ITS EXPONENTS 


It has been seen that the arguments for Universal- 
ism which we have reviewed were based chiefly upon 
philosophic or supposedly ethical and historic premises, 
while the Scriptures were appealed to only in a gen- 
eral way in vindication of the contentions. But no at- 
tempt is made by the defenders of this theory to de- 
velop it directly from the Bible, and from the Bible 
alone. Indeed, that universal salvation is not directly 
taught in the Bible must be admitted even by every 
honest exponent of that theory. And this is reluctant- 
ly acknowledged by many a fair-minded writer on the 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 183 


subject. Thus Thomas Starr King, in his answer to 
Nehemiah Adams (1858) on the Reasonableness of 
Future Punishment, makes the following admission: 
“T freely say that I do not find the doctrine of the 
ultimate salvation of all souls clearly stated in any 
text, or in any discourse, that has been reported from 
the lips of Christ. Ido not think we can fairly main- 
tain that the final restoration of all men is a promi- 
nent and explicit doctrine of the four Gospels. We 
needlessly narrow the grounds of opposition to sacri- 
ficial Orthodoxy, by attacking it from such a position” 
(Eternal Punishment, p. 5). He says further, “There 
is no argument for the final triumph of goodness re- 
corded in the four Gospels, nor any dogmatic textual 
assertion of that doctrine; but all the principles glow 
there” (Jbid., p. 7). And again, “Christ has given us 
cardinal truths of a great religion to be worked out 
by ourselves into intellectual results. Whatever re- 
sults those principles lead to, are just as much parts 
of Christianity as if he had covered pages of sacred 
parchment in writing them for us” (Jbid., p.8). Once 
more, ‘We are sure that God made our reason and 
our hearts. We cannot beso sure that he is the author 
of the Bible, so that, if we find insoluble discord be- 
tween the two, there can he little question which must 
and ought to yield” (Ibid., p. 11). 

Thus it will be seen how otherwise well-meaning 
men are led by the very logic of their own reasoning, 
from erroneous assumed premises or half truths, to 
deny the finality of the declarations of inspired proph- 
ets and apostles and thus to reject them as the court 
of final appeal. Dr. Marion D. Shutter is driven by 
such logic to assert, “I do not assume that the Bible 
from beginning to end is an absolutely infallible book 


184 What after Death? 


—that every statement is to pass unchallenged” (Jus- 
tice and Mercy, p. 62). And, as it were, to weaken 
the irresistible force of the language of Scripture as 
to the endlessness of future punishment—to take the 
possible sting out of such threatened punishment— 
Dr. Shutter would even read out of Scripture its pri- 
mary purpose. ‘This he does in the following words: 
“T may say right here that the Bible deals less with 
the future than we commonly suppose. Its aim is not 
to map out the soul’s condition hereafter; but to re- 
generate and purify and build up into righteousness 
the soul of man on this side of the horizon” (Ibid., p. 
66). It is indeed true that one aim of the Bible is “to 
regenerate and build up into righteousness the soul 
of man on this side of the horizon,” but only in view 
or for the purpose of its endless existence on the other 
side of that horizon. And to this end, enough of the 
great realities there are revealed to serve as light for 
our footsteps on the journey thither. 


Another writer is, by the same fallacious reasoning, 
led to make the following statement: “If the Bible 
teaches ‘everlasting punishment,’ so much the worse 
for the Bible, because we cannot believe it; you may 
quote texts and have behind the texts the very finest 
scholarship to justify certain interpretations, but it is 
no good. We are no longer the slaves of a book, nor 
the blind devotees of a creed; we believe in love and in 
evolution. The ‘Origin of Species’ knocked the bot- 
tom out of many creeds, and particularly it made the 
belief in the orthodox hell absolutely impossible.” (A. 
J. Waldron, in Is There a Hell, p. 81). And yet this 
same writer makes the following confession: “Of 
course there is a hell. JI could not believe in God un- 
less I believed in justice, and outraged conscience de- 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 185 


mands that the sinner should be punished. How I! 
know not, but I believe the verdict and sentence will 
be just, and that in the end we shall ‘rise on stepping 
stones of our dead selves to higher things’ ” (Ibid., p. 
34). The presumptuous absurdity of this writer’s 
first statement is so manifest as hardly to require an 
answer. The old tried and true Book of God is de- 
throned and ‘cast as rubbish to the void,’ and Dar- 
win’s Origin of Species, with its now well-nigh ex- 
ploded and scientifically outgrown form of the theory 
of evolution, is enthroned. Dr. Waldron has appar- 
ently become the slave of an erroneous book of mere 
human origin and the blind devotee of its creed of 
dust. And yet his own instinct of justice cannot thus 
be suppressed. It is bodied forth in words in the 
second quotation, where he speaks of a hell, although 
it be a hell patterned after evolution and at last to be 
erowned with the outworkings of that theory. 

Thus the theory of Universalism cannot stand the 
honest examination of really able Universalists them- 
selves. They must concede that this theory of a uni- 
versal salvation is not taught in the Scriptures, and 
that even human instinct, conscience and reason, 
are arrayed against it. We shall therefore leave this 
point with its own unmistakable lesson and proceed to 
consider the moral dangers involved. 


3 MORAL DANGERS INVOLVED IN THE THEORY 


The moral effects of prospective universal salvation, 
upon man as a free moral agent in this world, would 
not be difficult to imagine. If all would be saved, and 
especially if so by some fixed or absolute law of neces- 
sity, or by the omnipotence or prevailing power of 
God, then surely there would be no need of prayer, 


186 What after Death? 


Church, Gospel, preacher, nor even of Christ and His 
atoning death. The words of the Quaker layman to 
the preacher candidate who denied the existence of 
future punishment and hell, would in this connection 
be full of meaning. He said, “if thee has said truly 
that there be no hell and no future punishment, we 
do not need thee, And if thee has said falsely that 
there be no hell and no future punishment, then we 
do not want thee.” Indeed, if hell and future pun- 
ishment were not a reality, then “‘to be or not to be” 
would no longer be a question. Then, even for the 
suicide to die would truly be gain. If that were so, 


“Who would bear the whips and scorns of time, 
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, 
The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay, 
The insolence of office, and the spurns 
That patient merit of the unworthy takes, 
When he himself might his quietus make 
With a bare bodkin?’ 
(Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1). 


But God forbid that any such unwarranted meaning 
should be read into His Word against its own emphatic 
and repeated protests, as to justify the terrible sin 
of conscious suicide! 

It might also be said that if the teaching of ultra 
Universalism were true, then its adherents would 
surely merit no greater bliss hereafter. But if its 
teachings are false, as is only too evident from both 
nature and Scripture, then its adherents are taking 
chances of losing all and being lost. Moreover, if all 
would be saved, the unbeliever’s destiny would be the 
same as that of the believer; and that of the brutal 
murderer would be the same as that of his innocent 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 187 


victim, however pure and noble that victim might be. 
It is hardly necessary to state what effect such a moral 
order—or rather immoral or unmoral disorder—and 
its acceptance by faith, would have upon such a real 
world as ours, already only too full of wickedness. 
What moral restraint or fear would such an order, 
and faith in the same, afford to curb the evil propen- 
sities of the unregenerate natural man? What moral 
fruits can a religion produce that denies the natural 
sinfulness of man, his real need of a Saviour, the di- 
vinity of Christ, the doctrine of the atonement, and 
even in a sense the moral agency of man? 

Imagine the apostles going forth with such a creed 
of negations to convert the world! Imagine them say- 
ing: “Repent and flee from a wrath that will not 
come! Be baptized unto your brother man Jesus, the 
son of Mary and Joseph! Believe on him who died 
not for your sins but as an example of mere self-sac- 
rifice! Live noble and righteous lives, although 
whether you do so or not, you will nevertheless all 
be saved! Forsake your idols and turn to God, al- 
though He will not hold it against you and punish you 
for idolatry! Believe whatever you will as to all these 
things, and He will save you anyhow!” 

What an emasculated religion that would be! It 
would be exactly what many with itching ears (2 Cor. 
4:3-4) in our day are only too glad to welcome and 
help to propagate. It meets their wishes: and rather 
generally it matches the lives of such as give it their 
enthusiastic endorsement. But it is not a religion for 
apostles and missionaries and preachers of the truth 
to proclaim, with much hope of converting the world 
or of making it morally better. Such a religion can 
arouse the consciences of but few people and really 


188 What after Death? 


change the hearts of perhaps none. It can foster lit- 
tle devotion and send few to the Bible in search of sal- 
vation and eternal life. If searching in Scripture is 
done in the name of such a religion it is generally 
done to bolster up that religion which is so soothing 
to a sleeping conscience, against the real searchers 
after truth. Universalism may seem beautiful as a 
theory for a social, literary or philosophic club, or for 
a self-constituted: society of men and women for mu- 
tual entertainment; but as a religion for the sin-sick 
and salvation-hungry soul it is unsatisfying because 
it is neither regenerative nor morally unlifting. As 
Universalism teaches that all men will ultimately be 
saved, and therefore redemption to it is needless, it 
may be called redemptionless. And as it is redemption- 
less, it is crossless. And as it is crossless, it is Christ- 
less. Then why call it Christian? That many succeed 
in living outwardly moral lives, only shows what some 
may be in spite of their faulty faith. However, the 
apparent outward morality is by no means a safe cri- 
terion by which to measure the inner spiritual relation- 
ship to God. At any rate, such is not the rule, but 
rather the notable exception in demonstration of the 
rule. 


That the number of adherents of Universalism, 
either professed or secret, is apparently growing fast 
in this age of shifting faiths, is a patent fact well 
known to the religious world. And that a good part 
of the people of the nominally Christian world do in- 
deed so live as if salvation must be the necessary in- 
heritance of all as a matter of course, is so evident to 
every observer as to need no proof. But these af- 
ford no evidence or argument for universal salvation. 
They are only an incident of what is only too sadly 


Will Ali Finally Be Saved? 189 


the case in many sects and circles; namely, an unmis- 
takable drifting away from the unchanging truths and 
stern realities of the redemptive Christianity of Christ 
and Paul, to the spineless, crossless, Christless cul- 
turism of modern pharisaic self-righteousness and 
moral or spiritual evolutionism of this outwardly cul- 
tured twentieth century. 


The arch-enemy of man said to that sinless, inno- 
cent pair in Eden, who were forbidden by their Maker 
under penalty of death to eat of that mysterious tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil, “Ye shall not surely 
die” (Gen. 3:4). Soit has always been Satan’s method 
to soothe the fears, and rock to sleep the consciences, 
of those who will give him audience, by contradicting 
God’s declarations concerning the penalties with which 
He will surely visit the transgressions of His holy 
laws—laws which are otherwise, however, the very ex- 
pression of His love. This seems to be the very end 
and aim of Satan in prompting and fostering much of 
false philosophy or erroneous faith. Beware of any 
teachings that are in conflict with God’s revealed truth 
in explicit declarations, and especially if such conflict- 
ing teachings would nullify God’s justice and carry 
the sinner to the skies on “flowery beds of ease.” As 
such cannot be from God, they must necessarily have 
their subtle source in man’s determined foe, Satan 
the prince of the powers of darkness. 

We must not look for Satan in the form in which 
the artist has pictured him; namely, as a terrifying 
being with hoofs and horns. He did not thus approach 
even mother Eve, but appeared under the guise of a 
creature “more subtle than any beast of the field” 
(Gen. 3:1). His words were honeyed words of pre- 
tended kindness to the unsuspecting mother of man- 


190 What after Death? 


kind. He even thus made an attempt to bring under 
his subtle power the Son of God incarnate. He 
tempted Him in His hunger with bread of His own 
creation. He tempted Him with reckless presumption 
upon God the Father’s protection, for which he even 
brazenly quoted from the 91st. Psalm. He tempted 
Him with the kingdoms of the world and all their 
glory (Matt. 4:1-11). And, surely, no less so does 
he operate in this refined and gilt-edged cultured twen- 
tieth century. He can command a far easier audience 
by approaching as an angel of light than as a demon 
of darkness. And he still skillfully uses such honeyed 
words as “Ye shall not surely die,” though it be only 
through the medium of suggestion within the unre- 
generate heart. He thus, through all the otherwise 
perhaps legitimate pleasures of sense, approaches 
those whom he would destroy, begging fuller and fuller 
indulgence and satiety, assuring them, ‘‘Ye shall not 
surely die.”’ Who has not seen this illustrated many 
times in the lives of drunkards or devotees of licentious- 
ness? 


Thus very skillful and subtle indeed is Satan’s use 
of counterfeit religions and religious counterfeits. 
Who does not know how he uses subtle religious cults 
to draw men away from the central truth of Christ’s 
blood-atonement? Study the various cults of our time 
—Spiritualism, so-called Christian Science, and the 
rest of them—and see whether their central theme is 
not an evasion of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, away 
from which as by mystic force these cults seem to 
draw their thousands of victims. And the last-named 
of these cults in its name presumes to be so perfect 
an imitation of real Christianity that it calls itself 
by the two precious words Christian Science, the one 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 191 


the noblest term in the realm of religion and the other 
in that of thought and investigation. And as its basic 
principle, it also rests upon Satan’s own suggestion, 
“Thou shalt not surely die,’ with its associated er- 
rors of “No sickness, no evil, no sin, no damnation, 
no punishment; but all good, all blessedness.” It 
surely is well to be on one’s guard against any re- 
ligion or religious doctrine that nullifies the atone- 
ment, sets aside God’s justice, and teaches a universal 
redemption regardless of God’s own conditions. 

It may be added here that the very arguments of 
Universalists that are urged against future punishment 
would have equal foree, if force they have at all, 
against future blessedness. If there were no future 
punishment, then by the same reasoning it might be 
shown that there would be no future blessedness. To 
contend, moreover, that the former is of short dura- 
tion while the latter is without end, is simply a con- 
tention, as the terminology for their duration is the 
same for both. Therefore, if future punishment were 
but of short duration, future happiness would be of 
but short duration. But if future blessedness is of 
endless duration, as we shall show it to be, under Hter- 
nalism, then future punishment must of necessity also 
be of endless duration. So the argument against hell 
from the primary meaning of the word, would have 
equal weight against heaven from the primary mean- 
ing of the word heaven. Therefore, by these very 
arguments of Universalists their theory is seen to be 
utterly groundless. 


4 ITS FUNDAMENTAL FALLACIES 


As a theory Universalism is indeed beautiful, but it 
bears the earmarks of the poet and the philosopher 


192 What after Death? 


rather than those of the theologian and the devout 
Christian. In harmony with it are the following 
otherwise beautiful words of Tennyson: 


“Oh! yet we trust that somehow good 
Will be the final goal of ill, 
To pangs of nature, sins of will, 
Defects of doubt, and taints of blood; 


That nothing walks with aimless feet; 
That not one life shall be destroyed, 
Or cast as rubbish to the void, 

When God hath made the pile complete. 


nee eeent ewer ewesencerace Gate omen e nn ener enn w meres enews san nee samenednaseereaermem nnn nnrn ean ee eee mem nah am 


Behold, we know not anything; 
I can but trust that good shall fall 
At last-—far: off——at last; to all.’ 
(In Memoriam) 


As poetry or philosophy, the theory of Universal- 
ism might be said to be attractive; but as doctrine or 
theology founded upon the revealed Word of God, it 
cannot stand. It is clearly based upon sentiment 
rather than upon fact, upon human wish rather than 
upon divine truth. Its fundamental postulate—that 
God is love—is indeed true; but to say that therefore 
all will be saved, does not follow, for God is also in- 
finitely just. His infinite love of good even implies 
infinite hatred of evil. And this the Scriptures very 
explicitly teach. That many are lost beyond the pos- 
sibility of salvation and consigned to endless punish- 
ment, is repeatedly taught in Scripture, as we shall 
show under EHternalism. If it were true that man is 
not by nature a sinner, and therefore not a fallen but 


Will All Finally Be Saved? 193 


a developing being, and if at death each soul entered 
the future world to continue its upward progress to- 
ward God only as it leaves this, then all men might be 
supposed finally to be saved, and even by their own 
efforts. But what says God’s Word? We need not 
multiply passages here, as this has been shown else- 
where, except for the sake of completeness to refer 
the reader to such as Genesis 3; Job 25:4; Psalm 51:5; 
Romans 3:9; Galatians 3:22; Luke 16:19-31; Mat- 
thew 25-31-46; ete. In these and many other pas- 
sages, and by implication generally, Scripture teaches 
that man is a fallen and sinful, not an unfolding, be- 
ing, as also our own consciences, experience and hu- 
man history clearly testify. And the Bible no less 
clearly declares that it required the death of even the 
only begotten Son of God to make salvation possible 
for man, and that all who Reject, or do not believe in, 
Him are lost. 

Indeed, not only are the primary suppositions of 
Universalism contrary to Scripture and false, but as 
a logical result the whole system is permeated with 
error. In it, truth is so bound up with error as to 
make it almost unrecognizable, while error by its very 
association with truth is often mistaken for truth by 
the uninitiated. Thus, in acknowledging a resurrec- 
tion, Universalism seems to follow the Bible, but its 
conception of the resurrection as a mere transition 
from this sphere of existence to a future sphere, clearly 
nullifies every element of the resurrection as taught 
by Christ and His apostles. So its conception of 
Christ’s divinity, as defined by some of its apologists 
to make it appear more palatable, may seem to be 
Scriptural, but in reality it is essentially Unitarian. 
And, indeed, what would become of the incarnation 
and the atonement, as well as of many related doc- 


194 . What after Death? 


trines, if the theory of Universalism were true? 
These great doctrines of Scripture have, and can have, 
no place in Universalism. Its very fundamental view- 
point is evolutionary rather than redemptive. Thus, 
as has been shown, Universalism’s denial of future 
endless punishment is naturally, almost necessarily, 
followed by a denial of the deity of Christ, of the 
atonement, of man’s native depravity, and of the real- 
ity of sin, hell and Satan, and consequently of the in- 
spiration and infallibility of the Word of God, in which 
these doctrines are taught. And from these denials 
it is but a short step to the denial of the resurrection, 
future blessedness, immortality, heaven, angels and 
even the personality of God. Universalism thus opens 
the floodgates to final infidelity or utter atheism. Its 
natural fruits of licentiousness and sin must therefore 
be apparent to him who will follow such principles in 
their application to real life. 

Such, then, is the doctrine of Universalism with its 
possible fruits. Who would be willing to risk em- 
barking upon even an earthly journey in a vessel that 
was exposed to so many risks, and against the safety 
of which almost everybody and every circumstance 
were unitedly testifying! And yet there are many 
who thus rashly embark on their journey from this 
world to that unknown future realm in the conscience- 
soothing vessel of Universalism, when all the testi- 
mony of nature, conscience and revelation are against 
its safety. No one should risk to accept and follow 
such man-made theories as a cure-all from future ills. 
Jesus the Christ alone must be accepted as Saviour 
and Lord. He will not suffer one who trusts in Him 
to perish; but He will save all who draw near to Him 
with the devout prayer upon their lips, “‘God, be thou 
merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). 


CHAPTER VII 
EHTERNALISM 


WILL FUTURE PUNISHMENT BE ENDLESS? 


Although the eternity of future punishment has been 
alluded to or implied in the foregoing chapters, es- 
pecially under Annihilationism, it is necessary to de- 
velop this part of our subject more fully. 


I PHENOMENAL NATURE OF LANGUAGE 
CONSIDERED 


Inasmuch as the objections to this doctrine are to 
a large extent based upon the terms used in the Bible 
to express it, it is well carefully to consider this point. 

All human language, as has already been briefly 
stated in our first chapter, is phenomenal or meta- 
phorical. Language is the outgrowth of necessity, 
terms being born or created whenever new ideas de- 
mand expression, or old terms being pressed into serv- 
ice with added meanings. From primary or root 
ideas, reason, recognizing certain relations, compari- 
sons, etc., evolves more complex but related ideas. Yet 
all these ideas may be said to have their ultimate root 
in the physical sensorium. Therefore, through sense 
experience and consciousness, acted upon by reason, 
all language is really the outgrowth of, as it is based 
upon, the present physical sphere with its needs. 
Ideas like those of infinity and eternity, extending or 
lying beyond the range of human consciousness and 


196 What after Death? 


experience, have therefore no primary or root terms 
in human speech. This inadequacy of language di- 
rectly to express such ideas is necessarily manifest also 
in the Bible. This is particularly true of such trans- 
cendental ideas as those of creation ex nihilo, the facts 
of the spiritual world, and especially that of God. 
Note the name J AM, etc. (Ex. 3:14); or the Hebrew 
names Jehovah, El, Elohim, Elah, Eloah, et al. ‘These 
names, as their etymology shows, illustrate this inade- 
quacy of human speech to express the idea of God. 
The same is likewise true of the many so-called an- 
thropomorphisms of Scripture. 

The inspired writers, addressing human hearers and 
readers, always used human language as they found it. 
But by new relations and in new connections, as well 
as by repetitions or reduplications and by pluraliza- 
tions, they gave expression to ideas ordinarily lying 
beyond the range of consciousness and experience, and 
therefore transcending unenlightened human under- 
standing. Thus the ordinary Hebrew word olam (pe- 
riod of time), in its modified forms le olam, olam, 
olamim, etc., was made to express the transcendental 
idea of eternity, for ever and ever. So aion (adj. 
aionios) is primarily, indeed, a temporal term expres- 
sing duration; but, even apart from its modified forms, 
it often very plainly has a_ timeless meaning. 
When it is used of this world or of man’s life in this 
world, it of course is limited to this world’s or life’s 
duration and is therefore necessarily used in a tem- 
poral sense. As examples, we may cite cases where 
houtos ho (this) is used with aion (world or age), as 
in Matthew 12:32; Luke 16:8; 20:34; Romans 12:2; 
or where ho nun (the now or this) is used with it, as in 
1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:12. See 


Will Punishment Be Endless? 197 


also Mark 3:29; Galatians 1:4. When, however, this 
word aion is used of the future world and of future 
life, its content or duration corresponds to that world 
and that life; and they are acknowledged by all to be 
endless. Thus in the expression “neither in this world 
faiont], nor in that [atoni, understood] which is to 
come” (Matt. 12:32), the first word aiont very mani- 
festly is used in a temporal sense, as of that which has 
an end, and especially as to the possibility of forgive- 
ness. But the second word aioni (understood), is used 
in a timeless sense, as of that which does not have 
an end. And what is true of the use of the word 
aion, in these two senses in Matthew 12:32, is equally 
true of its use in Ephesians 1:21, where Christ is 
spoken of as being made to sit ‘‘far above all rule, and 
authority, and power, and dominion, and every name 
that is named, not only in this world [azonz], but also 
in that [aiont, understood] which is to come.” 


Thus ation is used of eternity just as truly as it is 
used of time. And that is its evident meaning when- 
ever it is used, whether as a noun or in its form of 
an adjective, of the future world, of future life and of 
God. And when used of future, or the second or eter- 
nal, death, or of future punishment, it is as unlimited 
in its duration as when it is used of the future life 
and future blessedness. Indeed, its duration is deter- 
mined by the world or age for, or in connection with, 
which it is used. Thus when used of God, angels, 
future world, future life, future punishment, aion 
clearly involves the idea of endlessness. To deny this 
is to deny that the existence of God has no end. It 
will be interesting to note that of the sixty-six times 
that atonios is used in the New Testament, in two 
places it is used of God (Rom. 16:26; Heb. 9:14), in 


198 What after Death? 

fifty-one places it is used of future happiness, indeeven 
places it is used of future punishment (Matt. 18:8; 
25:41; 25:46; Mark 3:29; 2 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 6:2; 
Jude 7). In the other six places it is used of what 
is endless, in at least five places. The same is true of 
aion. In Matthew 25:41, everlasting (aionion) fire 
for condemned men is said to be the same as that for 
lost angels; therefore it must be everlasting. Nor 
does the fact that aion is used rhetorically in the 
plural also for this world (1 Cor. 2:7; etc.) in the 
least affect our argument. Other points will be set 
forth under our next subdivision. 


What is true as to modified forms of Hebrew and 
Greek time-words to express timelessness, is equally 
true of the Latin translation of these forms, such as 
secula seculorum (for ever and ever), from the or- 
dinary seculum (age). Note also the German von 
ewigkeit zu ewigkeit and the English for ever and ever. 
The primary form of the Greek ation and aitonios is 
aei or aiet. And this has been brought over into Latin 
in aevum (age, eternity), into English in aye and ever, 
etc. And, indeed, as is the case with Greek and He- 
brew terms, so these terms in Latin and other lan- 
guages, in their unmodified forms, are also used of 
that which is endless. 

The idea of eternity is therefore an outgrowth of, 
and is expressed in terms primarily expressing, tem- 
poral ideas. So endless, timeless, without end, all the 
time, always, etc., are primarily or radically temporal 
terms. Thus end is a temporal term, but with its 
suffix less it acquires a timeless sense. Even the 
word timeless used in this explanation, is itself 
thus primarily a temporal term, so that even here we 
have an illustration of the fact referred to before, 


Will Punishment Be Endless ? 199 


namely, the inadequacy of human language directly to 
express such ideas as eternity, etc., because they lie 
beyond the range of human consciousness and experi- 
ence and have therefore naturally no primary or root 
terms in human speech. But all these terms, as has 
been shown above, in their new forms or relations, 
none the less express ideas which we speak of as eter- 
nal. And all these various Scriptural terms or expres- 
sions, whether in the original or in translation, or 
even in theological literature, have been so understood 
by all except a few modern objectors, who would stand 
in judgment upon the counsels and decrees of the in- 
finite and omniscient God as to the duration of the 
punishment of the wicked. 

These men admit the timeless meaning of these 
same terms when used of the duration of God and of 
the blessedness of the saved. But by a strange in- 
consistency, when they are used, even in the same 
paragraph or sentence, of the damnation of the lost, 
they would read a temporal meaning into them. But 
their arguments, so far as they might otherwise have 
even any appearance of force, would be equally valid 
in an attempt to disprove the eternity of God and of 
the blessed; and therefore these arguments really 
prove nothing. 

In order further to illustrate our point as to the 
meaning of these terms, we might speak of their use 
in the writings of heathen poets and philosophers to 
express the endless existence and deathlessness of the 
gods, etc.; but this would hardly be necessary for our 
purpose. It should be said, however, that though these 
primary time-words were first used in early literature 
for short time-periods, such as a thing’s duration of 
existence, they gradually came to be used of eternal 


200 What after Death? 


duration, especially so in their modified forms, as noted 
above. And this last had become the accepted mean- 
ing at the time of our Lord. Therefore, such words 
in the New Testament must be accepted with their de- 
rived meaning, especially where the context also clearly 
demands it. Thus aion, with its various modifications 
and equivalents, is used in the Greek New Testament 
of what is translated “eternal God’ (Rom. 16:26) ; 
“eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46); “eternal life’ 
(Matt. 25:46). And these uses are parallel—the last 
two occurring even in the same sentence—and must 
therefore be interpreted alike. The measure of the 
duration of the existence of God and of future life is 
therefore the measure of the duration of future pun- 
ishment. To abbreviate future punishment is to ab- 
breviate future happiness (eternal life). They either 
both will have an end or both will be endless. There- 
fore, to deny the endlessness of future punishment 
for the lost and yet admit eternity of blessedness for 
the saved, is an intellectual absurdity. No, as future 
happiness will be eternal, so also will future punish- 
ment be eternal. 


II CURRENT JEWISH BELIEF AND THE 
TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE 


That the eternity of future punishment is taught in 
the Old Testament is seen from such passages as Daniel 
12:2, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of 
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and 
some to everlasting contempt.” See also Isaiah 34: 
10; 66:24; etc. Indeed, the eternity of future punish- 
ment is everywhere assumed as a fundamental fact 
or truth, and is plainly implied, in the many warnings 


Will Punishment Be Endless? 201 


that recur so often throughout the whole Old Testa- 
ment. And that future punishment is eternal, was ac- 
cepted by the Jews as the inspired teaching of Moses 
and all the prophets. This was therefore also the al- 
most universal Jewish belief during their long prophet- 
less period preceding the advent of the Saviour, as weil 
as during and immediately following that advent. And, 
moreover, the duration of the punishment of the wick- 
ed was always regarded as equal to that of the blessed- 
ness of the righteous, as is shown by the literature of 
that period. That the Jews believed in the eternity of 
future punishment shortly before and during the time 
of our Lord, is evident from many passages in the writ- 
ings of the Rabbis of that time and from the Old 'Testa- 
ment Apocrypha. Nor is the Apocryphal New Testa- 
ment less clear on this point. As the Apocryphal New 
Testament is not generally accessible, we shall quote 
one passage in illustration, as follows: “But the way 
of darkness is crooked and full of cursing. For it is the 
way of eternal death, with punishment; in which they 
that walk meet those things that destroy their own 
souls’ (Barnabas 15:1). 
Moreover, for Christ not to interfere with the ac- 
cepted interpretation of the Old Testament on this 
point, or with current Jewish belief, by properly modi- 
fying well-known and accepted terms and contradict- 
ing current teaching, is prima facie evidence that such 
had divine sanction and must therefore be received as 
in accord with divine revelation on this doctrine. And 
Christ certainly knew to what abuses His silence would 
lead in the future, and would therefore emphatically 
have expressed Himself to correct Jewish belief then 
current, if He did not mean to sanction it. But by not 
modifying the current interpretation of the Old Testa- 


202 What After Death? 


ment, He thus implicitly endorsed it; and this becomes 
all the more evident from such declarations as the fol- 
lowing: “Think not that I came to destroy the law of 
the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil” 
(Matt. 5:17). 

But Christ did not only not contradict the current 
Jewish belief and interpretation of the Old Testament, 
that future punishment will be eternal, but He also 
very explicitly taught that it will be so. He is very 
emphatic in His teaching upon this point, and solemnly 
and repeatedly warns against its dangers. Thus we 
may cite Mark 9:48, “‘And if thy hand cause thee to 
stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into 
life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go 
into hell [Gehenna], into the unquenchable fire.” 
Equally emphatic are His words in Matthew 25:41-46, 
already quoted. In the last passage, the wicked are 
said to share the punishment of the fallen angels or the 
devil, and that all acknowledge to be without end. We 
surely need not multiply passages, as these should af- 
ford abundant proof that the Lord taught that the pun- 
ishment of the wicked will be eternal. 

Nor are the apostles, whose writings are meant to 
unfold the teaching and mind of the Lord, without their 
inspired testimony on this subject. And if the very 
manifest meaning of the Saviour’s teachings, which 
was and has ever since been the accepted interpreta- 
tion, were erroneous, then we should naturally look in 
the epistles for the necessary corrections. But instead 
of correcting the natural impression, that Christ 
taught that future punishment will be endless, this end- 
lessness is everywhere taken for granted. The apos- 
tles assume it as a doctrine that needs no proof from 
them. St. Paul, who was so thoroughly acquainted 


Will Punishment Be Endless? 203 


with the teaching of the Old Testament and its current 
Jewish interpretation and accepted belief, nowhere 
contradicts, nor even tries to correct, the manifest 
teaching that future punishment will be endless. On 
the contrary, he very solemnly asserts or reaffirms this 
doctrine in his epistles. Thus he declares, “Who [that 
know not God, etc.] shall suffer punishment, even eter- 
nal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the 
glory of His might” (2 Thess. 1:9). In many other 
expressions he also very clearly implies it, while it is 
one of the elements that is fundamental to his whole 
theology and to his great missionary enterprise. See 
Romans 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:12; Philippians 3:18- 
19. Moreover, in the Book of Revelation this doctrine 
of the endlessness of future punishment is repeatedly 
emphasized, and without any apology or defense to 
satisfy the maudlin sentimentalists of that period. Let 
the reader turn to Revelation and see for himself how 
full of this cardinal doctrine of Christianity it is. 


That the endlessness of future punishment is unmis- 
takably taught in Scripture, and especially in the New 
Testament, is acknowledged even by every great infidel 
who has seen fit to direct his futile missiles against the 
Rock of Ages. These infidels seem at least consistent 
as to this matter. Finding the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment, among other things to which they object, very 
explicitly taught in Scripture, they do not attempt to 
force these statements of Scripture into the mould of 
their own vain preconceptions, but they reject the 
records that are so clearly in conflict with their own 
views. The rationalistic theologian and the maudlin 
sentimentalist, on the other hand, are guilty of absurd- 
ly attempting to force the teachings of the Bible into 
the mould of their own thinking, although these teach- 


204 What after Death? 


ings and their own opinions no more agree than does 
light with darkness, or truth with error, anywhere 
else. To contend, as does even Schliermacher, that the 
everlasting punishment for the wicked spoken of in 
such passages as Matthew 25:46 is merely a figure, is 
only to dodge the force of a plain matter-of-fact state- 
ment by throwing over it the mantle of a figure. 


Thus the endlessness of future punishment was 
taught in the Old Testament, and this teaching was the 
current Jewish belief at the time of our Lord, while 
Christ Himself, as well as His apostles, repeatedly em- 
phasized and more fully developed it. Nor could the 
terms have any other meaning. And to try to explain 
them otherwise than the Jews, and indeed that age gen- 
erally, understood them, would in effect be attempting 
to make of the Saviour a wilful deceiver. 

Moreover, that future punishment should be eternal 
is not at all contrary even to reason. As already inti- 
mated, as acts of good tend to permanence in character, 
so repeated acts of sin by an irresistible law of our 
very nature have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. 
A state of sinfulness may thus be developed here that 
will necessarily hereafter continue eternally. In wil- 
fully resisting the proffered grace of God, whereby a 
change of character and salvation are possible, the 
heart at last becomes so hardened in this very resist- 
ance that conversion will no longer be possible. Thus 
sinfulness may become eternal by its very nature, and 
would therefore deserve eternal punishment. And this 
necessity of punishment for sin, as long as it continues, 
is admitted even by those who deny the endlessness of 
punishment considered by itself. Thus, while they 
would deny our conclusion as to the endlessness of fu- 
ture punishment, they must necessarily admit our pre- 


Will Punishent Be Endless? 205 


mises. And, in logical consistency, it would seem that 
they must necessarily also accept our conclusion; name- 
ly, that future punishment is endless. 

Even Canon Farrar, in his Preface to Eternal Hope, 
recognizes this great law of persistence in evil and its 
consequent punishment. He concedes the power of the 
human will to resist the law, and finally reject the love, 
of God. He says: “I have never denied—nay, in spite 
of deep and yearning hope, I have expressly admitted 
-—the possibility of even endless misery for those who 
abide in the determined impenitence of final and will- 
ing sin” (Preface to Ninth Thousand, p. xiii). Again, 
“T have steadily and earnestly maintained that no hu- 
man soul can be saved whether in this world or the 
next, without repentance; or admitted into blessedness 
whether here or hereafter, while its sinful state re- 
mains; or delivered from eternal death by any means, 
save such as are derived from the efficacy of Christ’s 
redemption” (Ibid., p. xiv). And in another place he 
says: ‘My hope is that the vast majority, at any rate, 
of the lost, may at length be found. If any hardened 
sinner, shamefully loving his sin, and despising the 
long-suffering of his Saviour, trifle with that doctrine, 
it is at his own just and awful peril” (ternal Hope, 
p. 88). And as to conditional immortality his words 
are very positive: “I cannot accept the spreading doc- 
trine of Conditional Immortality; I cannot preach the 
certainty of Universalism” (Ibid., p. 84). And once 
more: “‘And if you ask me whether I must not believe 
in endless torments for these reprobates of earth, my 
own answer is, Ay, for these and for thee, and for me 
too unless we learn with all our hearts to love good and 
not evil” (Ibid., p. 104). And all this from one who is 
often quoted as a defender of the theory of a possible 


206 What after Death? 


future salvation, against the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment! If Farrar is a strong defender of that theory 
and a leader of others, then what may we expect of 
those who are led? His arguments and concessions 
should show the reader how weak are the arguments 
of these men in general and how untenable is their 
position. Even Dr. Shutter, a staunch Universalist, 
holds that punishment will follow sin; that it extends, 
if necessary, even into the next world; and that it lasts 
as long as sin lasts (Justice and Mercy, p. 77). This 
is in line with what is stated above and may be con- 
sidered as one of the premises in our reasoning. Pun- 
ishment lasts as long as sin lasts. Sin in some cases 
lasts forever. Therefore, punishment, in those cases, 
must last forever. 


III OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 


A The argument has been advanced that in speaking 
about eternal or aeonian (aionios) life, Christ and His 
apostles meant quality rather than duration, and that 
this was true also of eternal death. Some hold that 
by eternal life is meant essential life and that eternal 
death is merely the want of this essential life, but that 
in neither case has the word eternal any reference to 
time. It is indeed true that eternal life is essential 
life and eternal death its opposite, but that is not the 
whole truth. Both this essential life and its opposite 
death are declared to be eternal in duration. 

Among the passages of Scripture upon which this 
contention is based is Christ’s declaration in John 3: 
36, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life.” 
Another passage is John’s statement in 1 John 5:13, 
“These things have I written unto you, that ye may 
know that ye have eternal life.”’” The contention is that 


Will Punishment Be Endless? 207 


these sayings, being in the present tense, could not be 
true of an eternal life in the sense of duration, even 
as they could not refer to one in the future. It is in- 
deed true that there is a sense in which God’s children 
do have eternal life in this world. But the fact seems 
to be overlooked that it is not exhausted, but has only 
its beginning, here, and that in its higher reality it 
must continue hereafter forever. And what is true of 
eternal life, in the relation of the here to the yonder, is 
also true of eternal death; for spiritual death here is 
the beginning of eternal death in its more terrible is- 
sue hereafter. Indeed, as eternity is an ever present 
now, it may be said, in a sense, to have no future nor 
any past. And, therefore, any punishment in the eter- 
nal world which may be conceived of from these tem- 
poral shores as imposed by God at any time, is equally 
conceivable as continuing for all time, or as there con- 
tinually present. But this objection has so little weight 
that it does not require further consideration. Thus 
aion and aionios are nowhere used in Scripture to ex- 
press mere quality, but wherever used they express 
duration. 

B_ The objection is made that such endless punish- 
ment would not only be in conflict with God’s infinite 
mercy, but also in plain contradiction even of his equal- 
ly infinite justice; and that, therefore, it would involve 
these two attributes of God in inexplicable mystery. 
But as an answer to this objection has already prac- 
tically been included in our sixth chapter, we do not 
feel it necessary to repeat the same, or to add more, 
here. However, as to the statement that an endless fu- 
ture punishment would involve God’s attributes in in- 
explicable mystery, it is enough here to say that this 
is only an attempt to shift a mystery, which unaided 


208 What after Death? 


human reason must necessarily acknowledge as exist- 
ing somewhere. This mystery is not so much in God’s 
attributes, although these are mysterious, nor even in 
the endlessness of punishment; but it is rather in the 
existence or reality of sin that makes such punishment 
necessary. And even sin itself we have shown under 
Probationism and Universalism to be eternal; there- 
fore, the punishment must also be eternal. 


C Another objection is based upon the possible 
number of those who would thus be eternally lost. But 
as to this little need be said. The number of the saved 
will indeed probably be greater than is generally be- 
lieved. This is implied in various passages in the book 
of Revelation, as well as elsewhere. This would also 
seem quite natural from the fact that many die in in- 
nocent infancy, that apparently many are saved as by 
fire even at the last moment (like the penitent thief), 
and that there may be circumstances operating for the 
salvation of many that do not become apparent to us in 
this life. But the Saviour’s words in Matthew 7:13-14 
and Luke 13 :23-24 should be a sufficiently plain warn- 
ing to any who, in objecting to eternal punishment, 
would attempt too radical a reduction of the number of 
the lost. At any rate, the mystery in which the endless- 
ness of future punishment is involved is brought no 
nearer to a solution by supposing the number of the lost 
to be reduced even well nigh to the vanishing point. 
The objector might as well, therefore, make up his 
mind to accept the teaching of the Scriptures upon their 
face value as to the endlessness of future punishment, 
regardless of the number of those who are thus ulti- 
mately lost. | 


D_ The further objection is made that the very hap- 


Will Punishment Be Endless ? 209 


piness of the blessed would be marred if some of their 
fellowmen would be eternally lost. Upon this point the 
philosophic Schliermacher puts considerable emphasis. 
In his well known Christlichen Glaube he presents quite 
a lengthy argument against eternal punishment based 
upon this point (Vol. II., pp. 503ff.). However, as our 
answer to this objection in which we have shown its 
fallacy and consequent invalidity, has already been 
given under Universalism, we shall not further dis- 
cuss this point here. 


E Some contend, as already noted under Annthila- 
tionism, that while eternal life consists in eternal exist- 
ence, eternal death consists in eternal non-existence, 
and that such eternal non-existence constitutes the pun- 
ishment of the wicked. Some hold to a modified form 
of this theory; namely, that the incorrigibly wicked 
will be punished with the extinction of self-conscious- 
ness. This was a favorite theory of Rothe. 


From the viewpoint of many a hardened sinner, such 
annihilation, or extinction of consciousness, would in- 
deed be a “‘consummation devoutly to be wished.” But 
such non-existence is even unthinkable on the part of 
anormal mind. Try it. See whether you can conceive 
of yourself (or even of another) as not existing. On 
the contrary, man instinctively feels not only that death 
physical, but also that the ‘‘second death,” does not end 
all. Thus, in his famous soliloquy, Hamlet is repre- 
sented as reasoning out whether, in his condition, it 
were better “to be or not to be,”’ with the conclusion, 
which even the natural man feels in the inner recesses 
of his own soul to be true; namely, that death is not 
life’s end, and that it were therefore unwise to hasten 
it by one’s own hand: 


210 What after Death? 


“Who would bear the whips and scorns of time, 
When he himself might his quietus make 
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear ;— 
But that the dread of something after death, 
The undiscovered country from whose bourn 
No traveler returns, puzzles the will, 
And makes us rather bear those ills we have 
Than fly to others that we know not of? 


Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.” 
(Hamlet, Act III, Scene I). 


As the contention that eternal death consists in eter- 
nal non-existence has already been refuted under An- 
nihilationism, it would be superfluous to enter into a 
lengthy discussion here. But for the sake of clearness, 
a summary of the argument or facts will be given. 

The reasoning of these annihilationists is based upon 
false premises; therefore, their conclusions must be 
false. Their conception of death, both here and here- — 
after, is false. Death and destruction are not equiva- 
lent to annihilation, as we have shown. Thus a thing 
is destroyed when it is rendered unfit for the use for 
which it was intended. An automobile is said to be 
destroyed when, in a collision, it is ruined or rendered 
unfit for further use; but the accident by no means 
annihilates it. It still continues to exist, although as a 
vehicle that is broken and worthless. So in physical 
death, the body for a short time even retains its iden- 
tity, but it can no longer perform its functions. And 
even in dissolution, in its elements it continues its be- 
ing. And if the soul then is without God, it, too, is but 
a broken existence, without the exercise of the spirit- 
ual and religious functions which are essential to rea] 


Will Punishment Be Endless? 211 


life, or life in God. And in eternal death, or what’ is 
called the “second death,” the reunited soul and body 
are forever thus destined to exist. Thus we are told, 
“Who [that know not God, etc.] shall suffer punish- 
ment, even eternal destruction from the face of the 
Lord and from the glory of His might” (2 Thess. 1:9). 
See also Mark 9:43-47; Revelation 14:11; 20:10. 


Thus the souls of the unrighteous, no less than those 
of the righteous, will continue in conscious existence 
between death and the resurrection. Those will be in 
a state and place of misery, and these in a state and 
place of happiness. At the resurrection the bodies of 
both will rise and be reunited with their souls; and in 
body and soul, thus reunited, both will be judged. And 
then will they permanently be separated for continued 
conscious existence, the righteous going into the eter- 
nal heaven of fuller glory, and the unrighteous depart- 
ing, as by their own moral gravitation, into the eternal 
hell (Gehenna) of deeper misery. Thus both the saved 
and the lost will have eternal being. The eternal being 
of the saved will be one of eternal happiness. It is that 
state of being in which man’s God-given functions, then 
sanctified and untrammeled, can have their full normal 
exercise. It is called life, because it will be in full cor- 
respondence with its environment—in Him who is Life 
absolute and life’s only source. It is “the life which is 
life indeed,” and which alone is worthy of the name 
(Matt. 7:14; 18:8). The eternal being of the lost will 
be one of punishment and misery. It is a state of be- 
ing in which man’s God-given functions cannot have 
their exercise, or fulfill the end for which they were 
created. It will consist in separation from Him who 
is the Life, and therefore in non-corresnondence with 
His glorious Being, etc., as its environment. It is the 


212 What after Death? 


opposite of life. It is, therefore, called death, because 
it will consist in the absence of what is above called 
life, and of its associated blessings. 

Inasmuch as such is the certain doom of the lost, this 
doctrine of endless punishment is one that must not be 
lightly regarded by the objector, and especially not on 
sentimental grounds. Ina sense, a man’s destiny here- 
after depends upon his attitude towards this doctrine 
in this life of probation. His life here is largely at- 
tuned to what he believes or knows will await him here- 
after. In the words of Dr. Shedd: “Eternal perdition 
is like any other danger. In order to escape danger, 
one must believe in it. Disbelief of it is sure destruc- 
tion. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. They who 
foresee an evil, prepare for it and avoid it; but ‘the 
simple pass on and are punished.’ Speaking generally, 
those who believe that there is a hell, and intelligently 
fear it, as they are commanded by Christ Himself, will 
escape it; and those who deny that there is a hell, and 
ridicule it, will fall into it” (The Doctrine of Endless 
Punishment, Preface, p. vi). 


IV ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT LOGICALLY 
NECESSITATED BY OTHER DOCTRINES 


Many of the other cardinal doctrines of the Bible are 
so associated with that of the endlessness of the pun- 
ishment of the wicked, that they either stand or fall 
with it. Therefore, to deny it is to deny them. Thus 
the doctrine of the atonement would be meaningless 
without this doctrine of eternal punishment. The in- 
finite sacrifice of Christ would have been made for a 
very finite necessity, if eternal punishment were not a 
reality. 

A To minimize the greatness, or to shorten the du- 


Will Punishment Be Endless? pAb; 


ration, of future punishment, ts to minimize the great- 
ness of sin. This is exactly what is being done by 
those who deny the needlessness of future punishment. 
They not only attempt to minimize the greatness of sin, 
but they even, in the very face of Scripture, deny the 
fundamental doctrine of man’s fall in Adam and orig- 
inal sin (Gen. 5:3; Ps. 51:5; John 3:5-6; Rom. 5:12- 
14; etc.). Thus Dr. Shutter, in somehow acknowledg- 
ing the reality of sin, makes the following statement: 
“There is something real to be dreaded, and that is 
SIN. Not the sin of Adam. Let him take care of that; 
it does not concern you and me. Not original or inher- 
ited depravity. ‘That is mere fiction. But that which 
is no fiction is one’s own personal wrong-doing” (Jus- 
tice and Mercy, p. 140). Another passage is equally 
emphatic: “Without consenting to that monstrous 
theological fiction, the fall of the race in Adam, where- 
by we are said to be under the curse of the law and 
deserving of endless fire, it is true that every one has 
to a greater or lesser extent, gotten away from the di- 
vine statutes, and needs to be brought back” (Ibid., p. 
228). 

Thus these men do not regard human nature to be in 
ruins, aS is everywhere either taught or implied in 
Scripture, and as is only too evident from human his- 
tory, experience and observation, but they regard it as 
only incomplete. Even Ulric Zwingli was misled into 
the unscriptural position that sin is only a bad habit. 
And with this error other equally great errors were 
logically associated. To what greater errors this other- 
wise good man might have been misled if he had lived 
long enough to follow such fundamental misconcep- 
tions to all their logical conclusions! His fundamental 
principles have indeed been thus followed to their logi- 


214 What after Death? 


cal conclusions by some of his followers, and much of 
the unsettled rationalistic theology of our day is the 
sad result. Therefore, in so far at least, Ulric Zwingli 
unwittingly became what might be called the father of 
modern rationalism. 


With this minimizing of the greatness of sin often 
is associated a very vague or erroneous conception of 
the Scriptural doctrine of the resurrection and the 
judgment, even in some cases to the utter denial of 
both. Thus Dr. Shutter says: “The idea of a future 
general judgment at the destruction of this world, 
where accounts shall be settled once for all and all at 
once, must share with the doctrine of vicarious sacri- 
fice the responsibility of fostering carelessness and 
procrastination” (Justice and Mercy, p. 143). And 
after summing up the prevailing ideas of the resur- 
rection and judgment, the same writer attempts to 
show how these ideas were gradually, at least in their 
practical application, abandoned, and then adds: “So 
with the vanishing of the notion of future judgment, 
the idea of a bodily resurrection has also been gradu- 
ally fading. Perhaps the strong improbability,—even 
the absurdity,—of such a resurrection, did much to 
obliterate the belief of a future judgment” (Jbid., p. 
172). But surely the doctrine of the resurrection is so 
explicitly taught in Scripture, especially in the New 
Testament, that to deny it is virtually to deny the Bible 
(Job 19:26; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2: John 5:28 >11523- 
26; etc.). Indeed, the bodily resurrection of the Sav- 
iour lay at the foundation of the unbounded faith of 
the apostles and was made the unanswerable argument 
in their work of evangelization (Acts 24:15; Rom. 6: 
4-5; 2 Cor. 4:18-14; 1 Thess. 4:138-18; see also Matt. 
28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20 and 21). And as to 


Will Punishment Be Endless ? 215 


the judgment, this doctrine is not only implied in the 
whole tenor of God’s revelation to men, but it is also 
very explicitly taught in numerous passages of Scrip- 
ture, such as Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 
5:10; Heb. 9:27. But as this has already been con- 
sidered under Annihilationism, we shall not. further 
discuss it here. 

We might add in this connection that, as sin is 
against the infinite God, there is a sense in which it 
must be considered infinite. A sin against a fellowman 
is great, but a sin against God is as much greater as 
God is greater than man, and is therefore infinite. In- 
deed, the sacrifice that was necessary to save man from 
sin and its guilt implies this; for it was not the sacri- 
fice or death of a man, nor of'an angel, but of the eter- 
nal Son of the infinite God. Hence, the atoning sacri- 
fice of Christ implies what is explicitly taught in God’s 
Word; namely, that those who reject Christ’s pardon- 
ing grace will suffer punishment in the eternal world, 
and one that is endless. Even philosophically con- 
sidered future endless punishment is thus further seen 
to be a reality. 

B To minimize the greatness of sin is to minimize, 
or even to deny, Christ’s sacrifice for sin. In true con- 
sistency, that is what these men either directly, or by 
implication, do. Thus Dr. Shutter says: “My hope is 
based, not upon immunity from suffering which the 
legerdamain of vicarious sacrifice offers, but largely 
upon the very fact of suffering itself. . . . Every 
man shall expiate his own sins” (Justice and Mercy, 
p. 148). Again he declares: ‘The atonement was not 
upon Calvary, but in the human heart. That was to be 
reconciled to a life or righteousness” (Jbid., p. 161). 
In explaining 1 John 3:7, the same author makes the 


216 What after Death? 


following statement: “The righteous man, he who is 
justified in the sight of God, is the man who does right 
just as Christ did right; who stands before heaven and 
earth on the basis of his own character, just as Christ 
stands upon the basis of his character. Let no one 
lead you astray by teaching that there is any being in 
this universe who can take your place in obedience or 
in penalty. Every man stands for himself; there is no 
punishment but that which he himself suffers for his 
own transgressions.. The penalty which ought to fall 
upon him is never laid igs the shoulders of another.” 
(Ibid., 225). 


That the Scriptures teach that Christ died for man’s 
sin, is so evident, and has always been so generally ac- 
cepted, that it would seem that this could never be de- 
nied by any intelligent reader of the Word of God. 
And yet so blinded to the truth of God have some of 
these men become in endeavoring to establish their own 
favorite theories, that not only this but many other 
equally explicit teachings of the Bible have been de- 
nied by them. What an array of Scripture passages 
could be quoted in vindication of the doctrine of the 
vicarious sacrifice of Christ! Very explicit and em- 
phatic, indeed, are such passages as the following: “Be- 
hold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the 
world!” (John 1:29) ; ““God commendeth his own love 
toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ 
died for us” (Rom. 5:8); ““The blood of Jesus his Son 
cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). See also Isa- 
iah 538:4-6; Matthew 20:28; John 10:18; Romans 8: 
32; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; 1 Timothy 2: 
6; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; as well as other passages on im- 
putation and justification, notably Romans 1:17; 4:4-5; 
8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Philippians 3:9; ete. It is 


Will Punishment Be Endless? nats 


surely not necessary, therefore, to develop this point 
any further. We would, however, refer the reader to 
Purgationism, division V, where the Scriptural doc- 
trine of the atonement is set forth. 

Moreover, with this minimizing or denying of 
Christ’s sacrifice for sin is logically associated the min- 
imizing of God’s wrath upon sin, although this wrath 
is not only repeatedly emphasized in the Bible, but it is 
implied in all its many threatenings and promises. See 
especially Job 21:20; Psalm 106:23, 32; Romans 2:5, 
8; Revelation 2:5. This very emphatic teaching of 
Seripture as to God’s wrath upon sin is not only mini- 
mized, but even denied by Dr. Shutter in the following 
words: ‘Forgiveness is not the cessation of God’s 
wrath, which never began, which demanded no sacri- 
fice of the blood of his best beloved Son before he 
could look with compassion upon the rest of his chil- 
dren; but it is the removal of those things in human 
character and conduct which make man look for wrath 
and expect it” (Justice and Mercy, p. 162). Again, “I! 
want to tell you that there is not and cannot be any 
such thing in God as you and I understand by wrath”’ 
(Ibid., p. 242). Such assertions, in the face of the ex- 
press declarations of the Scriptures to the contrary, 
should in themselves be sufficient warning to the devout 
believer in God’s Word against the teachings of Uni- 
versalism. 

C To minimize Christ’s sacrifice for sin ts to mini- 
mize the greatness of His Person. This minimizing of 
Christ’s sacrifice naturally leads to a regarding of 
Christ Jesus as merely a created finite being. And, 
as a logical necessity, this latter, too, the objectors to 
the doctrine of the endlessness of future punishment 
are doing. Thus Dr. Shutter, whom we shall again 


218 What after Death? 


quote because his statements represent the teachings 
of Universalists in general, emphatically declares: “I 
do not preach to you Christ as very God,—not as the 
second person in the Trinity,—not as a sacrifice to 
appease the Almighty; but as our elder and greater 
Brother, in whom the Divine life of the Father was 
most fully manifested; our Teacher, Leader and In- 
spiration” (Justice and Mercy, p. 156). 

Thus Universalism logically leads to Unitarianism, 
as Unitarianism necessarily leads to Universalism. Or, 
Universalism is logical Unitarianism, as, conversely, 
Unitarianism is logical Universalism. Then, although 
there are minor differences between them, why do not 
at least these two sects unite, or why is not the one or 
the other of them eliminated? , 

It would seem needless to give proofs for Christ’s 
Deity, as this is taught in the prophecies of His coming, 
and in the entire New Testament. But as this central 
doctrine is being challenged, we shall give enough proof 
to show that this is the unmistakable doctrine of the 
Scriptures, regardless of what a few objectors may say 
to the contrary. | 

Every intelligent reader of the Bible must accept 
Christ’s pre-existence, as taught in many passages, as 
for example in the following: ‘In the beginning was 
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word 
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 
All things were made through him; and without him 
was not anything made that hath been made. 

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” 
(John 1:1-14); “Before Abraham was born, I am” 
(John 8:58). Nor can any one call in question Christ’s 
sinlessness while here on earth, as clearly taught in the 
following passage: “For we have not a high priest that 


Will Punishment Be Endless? 219 


cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; 
but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we 
are, yet without sin’ (Hebrews 4:15). See also John 
8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 2:21- 
22. And His present reign is equally clearly taught: 
“Who [Jesus Christ] is on the right hand of God, hav- 
ing gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers 
being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22). See also 
such passages as Revelation 1:17-18. Moreover, to 
Christ the same as to God the Father the Scriptures 
ascribe divine names (John 1:23, with Isa. 40:3; and 
many other passages) ; divine works (John 1:3; Col. 
1:16; Heb. 1:10; etc.) ; divine attributes (Matt. 28:18; 
Heb. 13:8; etce.); and divine worship (Phil. 2:10; 
Rev. 5:12-14; ete.). Surely, further arguments and ci- 
tations to prove Christ’s Deity will be unnecessary for 
the purpose in hand. 

D To attempt to shorten the duration of future re- 
tribution is, therefore, to deny Christ’s Deity. It can 
thus readily be seen why so many Universalists are led 
to a rejection of the Deity of Christ. 

The Saviour’s Deity gave to His sacrifice for man an 
infinite measure, and this infinite measure implies in- 
finite guilt on the part of man and consequently eternal 
punishment. Thus the doctrine of an endless punish- 
ment for the wicked is so related to that of the atone- 
ment, and therefore to those of Christ’s incarnation 
and Person, and indeed to all other associated doctrines, 
that to deny it is virtually to deny all. 

Having shown that the eternity of future punish- 
ment is not only the true Scriptural doctrine but that 
it is also in no way contrary to reason, we shall pro- 
ceed to a consideration of the much discussed and much 
misunderstood question as to the nature of future pun- 
ishment. 


CHAPTER VIII 
THE NATURE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT 


WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE LOST? 


As to the nature of future punishment, there are 
various theories. And with reference to this point 
there is more latitude for differences of opinion than 
with reference to the other points already discussed. 
Upon those points the Scriptures are much more ex- 
plicit, the meaning in some cases being so unmistak- 
able as to warrant only one honest interpretation. 

On the nature of future punishment we have but 
little direct and definite revelation, and human reason is 
not able to resolve these mysteries of the future worid. 
Nor is it the purpose of Scripture to reveal every- 
thing to man. Indeed, many details are wisely with- 
held. Moreover, from the point of view of the material 
world we could not even understand a full revelation of 
so transcendent a fact of the spiritual world as the es- 
sential nature of future punishment. And such a rev- 
elation would probably be impossible, as the ultimate 
facts and truths of the spiritual world could not be re- 
vealed to us directly, but only by metaphor and analogy 
in terms of the natural world. It would be as impos- 
sible directly to reveal to us, in our present state, the 
essential nature of future punishment, as it would be 
impossible directly to reveal that of future blessedness, 
that of our celestial bodies of which St. Paul speaks 
(1 Cor. 15:37-44), or that of God Himself (Ex. 33:20; 


The State of the Lost ifs | 


John 1:18; Job 11:7; 26:14; Rom. 11:33). There are 
several elements of the nature of future punishment 
that are, however, more or less clearly revealed to us 
in the Word of God, though chiefly in metaphor and 
by implication. Some of these elements are of a nega- 
tive or privative, and some of a positive, nature. 


I ELEMENTS OF A NEGATIVE NATURE 


According to the Word of God, the wicked will be 
separated from the righteous. That separation will 
take place, as to their souls, immediately after death, 
as is taught in Luke 16:22-31: “And it came to pass, 
that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by 
the angels into Abraham’s bosom. . . . And besides 
all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, 
that they that would pass from hence to you may not 
be able, and that none may cross over from thence to 
us.” The wicked will thus be separated from the right- 
eous between death and the general judgment. And at 
the general judgment, the separation will be made per- 
manent or eternal and absolute, as the Saviour explicit- 
ly declares in Matthew. 25:32-46: “And before him 
shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate 
them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the 
sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his 
right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the 
King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed 
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 
from the foundation of the world. . . . Then shall 
he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared 
for the devil and his angels . . . And these shall 
go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous 
into eternal life.” See also Matthew 8:11-12; 13:49; 


222 What after Death? 


22:13; 25:30. And, moreover, we are taught that the 
condemned sinner will not even receive any sympathy 
from the blessed, as it is written, “The righteous also 
shall see it, and fear, and shall laugh at him” (Ps. 
52:6); “The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the 
vengeance’”’ (Ps. 58:10). 

In addition to this separation, there is another, and 
even worse, separation. The wicked will be separated 
from the presence of God and His glory; and this also 
will be true of them both between death and the resur- 
rection and after the final judgment. This is also very 
evident from the passages quoted above, to which we 
might add 2 Thessalonians 1:9: ‘‘Who [that know not 
God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ] shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruc- 
tion from the face of the Lord and from the glory of 
his might.” This separation is also to last forever, not 
in non-existence but in full consciousness of being, and 
is therefore spoken of in the last quotation as a pun- 
ishment with “everlasting destruction from the face 
of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” It is to 
be where the sinner’s own wilful separation from God 
in this world will have been made permanent by Him 
whom the sinner rejected and whose pleadings for re- 
pentance he despised. It is to be where God’s light and 
love and beneficent laws are absent and therefore give 
no cheer and hope (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). It is 
to be deprived of the enrapturing and transforming 
vision of God—God in Christ and Christ in God—and 
of the unspeakable joy of a better, because immediate, 
knowledge of His glorious Being. 

This separation is therefore to exist forever without 
the supreme pleasure:expressed or implied in such pas- 
sages as the following, which, however, in our confined 


The State of the Lost 223 


mortal life altogether transcend our most exalted con- 
ceptions: “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it 
is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know 
that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; 
for we shall see him even as he is” (1 John 3:2); 
“Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given 
me be with me where I am, that they may behold my 
glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me 
before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24) ; 
“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in 
me” (John 14:11) ; “For now we see in a mirror, dark- 
ly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then 
shall I know fully even as also I was fully known” (1 
Cor. 13:12) ; “And this is life eternal, that they should 
know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst 
send, even Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). 

Such separation from the righteous and from God 
means not only that the sinner is deprived of, or absent 
from, all good, but also that against him is arrayed 
every law of an otherwise gracious God. And no mer- 
cy or pity from a to him hitherto merciful God will go 
out toward the sinner, as is intimated in Proverbs 1: 
26-32: “TI also will laugh in the day of your calamity; 
I will mock when your fear cometh,” etc. Such nega- 
tive punishment is in itself inexpressibly terrible, and 
its contemplation should constitute a sufficient solemn 
warning to every unrepentant sinner. The possibility 
of a future separation from God and the blessed, from 
all love and light and real life, should be enough to 
make even the most daring criminal halt in his career. 


II ELEMENTS OF A POSITIVE NATURE 


The negative elements spoken of above may be con- 
sidered as constituting only the condition of future 


224 What after Death? 


punishment in its essential positive nature, or its dis- 
mal periphery. 


sf OBJECTIVE 


Not only will the wicked be banished from God and 
the good of both men and angels, but they will be con- 
demned to be together. And after the judgment their 
abode will be with the devil and his angels, as is stated 
in different places, as for example in Matthew 25:41: 
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, De- 
part from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is 
prepared for the devil and his angels.” See also Reve- 
lation 20:10. Those of Satanic character, called also 
by Christ sons of hell (Gehenna, Matt. 23:15), will ap- 
propriately be consigned to the company of devils to 
share with them their diabolical abode. Thus not only 
will they be deprived of all the unspeakable joys and 
pleasures of heaven, but they will be doomed to the in- 
expressible anguish of hell (Gehenna). As to this 
point, many passages of Scripture already cited, es- 
pecially in the first chapter, are very explicit. 


(1) Expressions or Terms Used 


In Christ’s account of the judgment the wicked are 
called cursed (Matthew 25:41). Their post-judgment 
state is variously spoken of as one of eternal punish- 
ment (Matt. 25:46); of zudgment of hell (Gehenna, 
Matt. 28:33). They are said to be cast into outer 
darkness, where there shall be the weeping and the 
gnashing of teeth (Matt. 8:12 :22:13; 25:30) ; into the 
furnace of fire, where there shall be the weeping and 
the gnashing of teeth (Matt. 13:42 and 50). Their 
abode is further described as one of eternal fire which 


The State of the Lost 225 


is prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41) ; 
as the hell (Gehenna) of fire (Matt. 5:22); as hell 
(Gehenna), where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
not quenched (Mark 9:43-48). 

Very expressive also are such passages as these: 
“He [any man who worshippeth the beast] also shall 
drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is pre- 
pared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall 
be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence 
of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb,” 
etc. (Rev. 14:10-14); “And the devil that deceived 
them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where 
are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall 
be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 
20:10; see also Rev. 19:20; et al.). These declarations 
about the punishment of the devil and wicked men after 
the final judgment are unmistakable as to its terrible- 
ness. So also what is apparently the abode of the 
wicked from death to the resurrection of the body is 
spoken of as a place of torments in flames (Luke 16: 
23-28—Hades; etc.). Other terms or descriptive pas- 
sages might be cited not only from the New Testament, 
but also from the Old Testament; but these citations 
are sufficient for our present purpose. 


(2) Meaning of These Terms 


What these terms and expressions about the terrible 
place and state of the condemned really mean, no one 
can tell with any degree of certainty. They are no 
doubt highly metaphorical, as only in figure could any 
ideas of such transcendant things be conveyed to our 
sense-bound finite minds, as explained in the first and 
seventh chapters. But in employing terms or expres- 
sions which in the language of this material world are 


226 What after Death? 


expressive of, or associated with, the acutest agony of 
mind or body, the Saviour and His apostles meant to 
give such a description of the future punishment of the 
wicked as would convey at least some idea of its terri- 
bleness. 


No one should, however, affirm that that punishment 
in the future world will consist in a literal burning 
by fire, such as we know in this grossly material world, 
as some have held and taught. To do so would be to 
pretend to understand and explain the ultimate es- 
sence of things in the supernatural sphere, which in 
Scripture are set forth only in the metaphorical lan- 
guage of the natural sphere. Indeed, the facts that 
the fallen angels, who are pure spirits, share in that 
punishment, and that that fire is said not to consume, 
are against the theory of such a literal burning. That 
it is not a literal earthly fire must therefore appear al- 
most certain from the very nature of fire and the 
nature of the future world as revealed in the Word of 
God. 

On the other hand, no one should deny the possi- 
bility that that punishment may be associated with 
something at least analogous to fire in this world, 
though very different in nature and phenomena. To do 
so would also be to pretend a knowledge of the nature 
of things spiritual, or of spiritual substance, totally 
unwarranted by any human science, as well as by 
Scripture. Indeed we really know nothing of the ulti- 
mate nature and constitution of things in that as yet 
unseen and unknown spiritual, and therefore, trans- 
cendent, world. 

The figurative nature of the language of Scripture 
on this point is therefore apparent. But we cannot 
lose sight of the fact that it is such as to convey the 


The State of the Lost Paton | 


idea that what is thus said of the future world is more 
or less analogous to what we know in the present 
world or course of nature. At any rate, the descrip- 
tions of the punishment of the wicked are so realistic 
that it should preclude at least any dogmatism on the 
part of those who do not believe in the reality of this 
positive element of future punishment. It is an incon- 
trovertible fact that, whatever its nature, this element 
of future punishment is everywhere described as real 
and agonizing. 


2 SUBJECTIVE 


In addition to those objective elements so unmistak- 
ably real and positive, whatever their transcendent 
nature, there are other elements that are subjective, 
though no less positive and real. The words ‘‘Son, re- 
member,” to the rich man (Luke 16:25), suggest what 
is undoubtedly true in this respect of every condemned 
sinner, not only before but also after the judgment. 
The sinner will be fully conscious and will remember 
(Luke 16 :23-30) ; and, in the identity of his personal- 
ity in this world and in the next, his J or mine or me 
hereafter will be the same as his J or mine or me here. 
Not only will he recognize this great fact, but he will 
also be conscious of, or remember and know, his per- 
sonality in its completeness. His past will thus be ever 
present in the developed character of his own being. 
Without a doubt, 


“There no shade can last 
In that deep dawn behind the tomb, 
But clear from marge to marge shall bloom 
The eternal landscape of the past.” 
(Tennyson: Jn Memoriam) 


228 What after Death? 


The memories of grace rejected and opportunities 
lost will vividly flash upon him in all their terrible 
reality. Perhaps the fruitless pleadings and providenc- 
es of God, and the repeated warnings, in this life, will 
then rise up before the sinner as testimony against him. 
He will then also see and understand more fully the 
magnitude of sins committed against God and man and 
their dire effects, both upon others and upon himself, 


as well as upon the universal order. The utter folly 


of sinning against the infinite and long-suffering God 
must become apparent in all its immeasurable great- 
ness, and all hope of escape from his condition under 
the righteous judgment of God will then have van- 
ished. The words of the Psalmist could appropriately 
then also come from the lips of the condemned sinner: 


“Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? 
Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: 
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. 
If I take the wings of the morning, 
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 
Even there shall thy hand lead me, 
And thy right hand shall hold me. 
If I say, Surely the darkness shall overwhelm me, 
And the light about me shall be night; 
Even the darkness hideth not from thee, 
But the night shineth as the day: 
The darkness and the light are both alike to thee” 
(Ps. 189:7-12). 


The condemned will, moreover, be filled with inex- 
pressible remorse. They are spoken of as weeping, 
ete. See Matthew 8:12; 13:42 and 50; 22:18; 24:51; 


The State of the Lost 229 


25:30; also such passages as Luke 16:19-81. Con- 
science, which had been lulled to sleep by a life of 
worldliness here, will there, in the light of unfailing 
memory, be very much alive and recoil with unspeak- 
able horror and anguish. The justice of God’s wrath 
upon sin, and of the sinner’s punishment, must force 
itself upon the sinner with irresistible power. 


The consciousness that all possibility of repentance 
and salvation is gone and that his state of punishment 
is final and absolute and the gulf that separates him 
from God and the blessed and all good, fixed, will add 
to the sinner’s anguish (Luke 13:28; et al.). His 
character also will then be fixed, except that it may pos- 
sibly tend to degenerate toward yet deeper evil and 
ruin. 

But as there will be different degrees of glory to the 
blessed (Dan. 12:3; Matt. 5:19; 19:28; Luke 12:47- 
48; 19:12-26; 22 :88-30; etc.), so also will there be dif- 
ferent degrees of punishment, both objective and sub- 
jective, to the condemned. These will be in accordance 
with the greatness and nature of sins committed and 
the developed character. Thus Jesus declares: “And 
that servant, who knew his lord’s will, and made not 
ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten 
with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things 
worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with-few stripes. 
And to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much 
be required: and to whom they commit much, of him 
will they ask the more” (Luke 12:47-48). See also 
Matthew 11:24; 16:27; 23:15; Luke 10:12; 20:47; 
Rev. 2:23; 22:12; etc. Additional points on what is 
discussed above will be found in the chapter on Proba- 
tionism. 

Such is the picture of the future punishment of the 


230 What after Death? 


wicked, drawn chiefly from the teachings of the lov- 
ing and merciful Saviour Himself. It plainly shows 
the utter folly and the unspeakable consequences of a 
life of worldliness and sin. It illustrates or confirms 
what is said in Hebrews 10:31, “It is a fearful thing to 
fall into the hands of the living God.’”’ Moreover, the 
consequences are seen to follow the sinner’s own wilful 
rejection of grace and his transgression or abuse of 
otherwise beneficent law. The sinner is thus alone re- 
sponsible for his own lost condition, as it is written, 
“Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” 
(Gal. 6:7). 


It has not been a very agreeable task to point out 
in the foregoing chapters the errors—some of them 
very subtle and yet perhaps all the more dangerous— 
in the teachings of eminent and apparently well-mean- 
ing men. Nor has it even been more agreeable to set 
forth in this chapter the undeniable teaching of the 
Scriptures as to the punishment that will hereafter be 
meted out to sinners unrepentant here. We have done 
so only in the interests, and for the vindication, of the 
truth as unmistakably taught by Christ and His bless- 
ed apostles and as we reverently accept and believe it. 
And if we have succeeded, by the grace of God, in lead- 
ing earnest inquirers to the truth as to this solemn sub- 
ject, as well as in warning heedless persons from a life 
that would inevitably lead to the unhappy end pointed 
out in this chapter, we shall consider our humble labors 
richly rewarded, to the glory of our infinitely merciful, 
and yet equally just, eternal God. 


CHAPTER IX 
THE NATURE OF FUTURE BLESSEDNESS 


WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE SAVED? 


It is refreshing to turn from the discussion of the 
state of the lost to a consideration of the blessedness 
of the saved. This is a subject that comes close to 
many an anxious heart. Nor has interest in it per- 
haps ever been keener than during and since the late 
War. To many a fond father and tender mother whose 
son fell in the service of his country, questions like the 
following have come unbidden: Is his state in the 
spiritual world one of conscious blessedness? Does he 
remember us and the associations of his life while on 
earth? Is it well with our boy? Yes, and so con- 
cerned are many about their departed loved ones that 
they would even through so-called spiritistic mediums 
seek the desired information. There is many a Sir 
Oliver Lodge who is anxious to look behind the veil 
that separates our world from that of a departed Ray- 
mond. 

Fortunately we are not left entirely in ignorance as 
to the state of the sainted dead. We need not resort to 
forbidden means to attain such knowledge as is well 
for us to have. We need not listen to any unauthorized, 
uncertain or ambiguous voice from the spirit world. 
There is a voice which all who hear may recognize as 
the voice of truth. It is the voice of Him who knows 
because it is the voice of God. And when God speaks 


Zoe What after Death? 


on so transcendent a subject, even though He uses the 
instrumentality of human lips or the hands of human 
scribes, His word is with an authority that is final and 
should therefore gratefully be accepted by all that 
claim to be His children. Of course, many things that 
might satisfy our curiosity and that of themselves 
might be interesting to know, He has not revealed. But 
enough is made known to us to guide us in our course 
through this world on our journey to that other world: 
more is not required. 

Some of the elements in the blessedness of the saved 
have already been foreshadowed in the previous chap- 
ters, in connection with our consideration of the state 
of the lost. We shall now set forth more in detail what 
has been revealed on this great subject. 


I NO INTERMEDIATE STATE OF UNCON- 
SCIOUSNESS 


We have already shown that neither for the unright- 
eous nor for the righteous is there an intermediate 
state of unconsciousness or so-called sleep until the 
time of the resurrection of the body and its reunion 
with the soul. Neither is there any intermediate place 
of mere neutral waiting for good and bad alike until 
the resurrection; nor is there any so-called limbus pat- 
rum or limbus infantum. And that there is no state of 
temporal punishment for such as are supposedly finally 
to be saved is set forth at length in the fifth chapter. 
But as the souls of the lost at death pass immediately 
into a state of misery in the other world, as we have 
shown, so do the souls of the saved pass immediately 
into one of blessedness. Lazarus died and was carried 
immediately into Abraham’s bosom; the thief on the 
cross passed into the spiritual world and met Jesus that 


The State of the Saved 238 


day in Paradise; or, in general, for the redeemed to be 
absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, to 
be where Christ is. It is to pass into a state that has 
appropriately been characterized as one of life, of life 
that is everlasting. Yes, it is thus literally true that 
he that believeth in Christ, though he were dead, yet 
shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in 
Christ shall never die. 

It is, moreover, a state of full consciousness, not one 
of a semi-consciousness in which the soul would 
somehow make itself felt by the spirits of the living in 
this world and communicate to them in a vague manner 
a dim revelation of the other world and of its own 
dreamlike condition. No, it is a state in which con- 
scious personal identity continues, in which memory 
endures. “Son, remember,” were the words spoken to 
~ the rich man in Hades; and these words, which imply 
that the conscious personality of the lost persists and 
that memory lives on, might equally have been ad- 
dressed to Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom. There is no 
so-called reabsorption into an hypothetical general soul. 
Thus there is perhaps as much truth as poetry in the 
suggestive words of Tennyson, 


“There no shade can last 
In that deep dawn behind the tomb, 
But clear from marge to marge shall bloom 
The eternal landscape of the past.” 


The memory of having helped on to the road toward 
the light, toward salvation through the crucified Re- 
deemer, some fellow-pilgrim on life’s pilgrimage, will 
no doubt be an element in the composite joy and bless- 


234 What after Death? 


edness of the saved. The memory of a life of service, 
the consciousness of the far-reaching blessed outwork- 
ings of good deeds done and the fruitage of kind words 
spoken and warning admonitions given, must prove an 
unspeakable satisfaction and joy. 


II MORE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE AND BETTER 
UNDERSTANDING 


It will be a state in which the departed will know, at 
least in a measure, some of the mysteries of God, of 
His greatness and of His wondrous works and especial- 
ly of His providential dealings with themselves. “For 
now we see in a mirror darkly; but then face to face: 
now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as 
also I was fully known” (I Cor. 13:12). With “larger, 
other eyes,” tne redeemed wiil see and understand how 
God has led them all their life long through this world 
of probation and preparation. And they may, for all 
we know, even be vouchsafed some knowledge of God’s 
dealings with their friends in this world and of the 
ongoings in His Kingdom. ‘This does not mean that 
the sainted dead will know everything, but that as far 
as their knowledge will extend it will no doubt be in- 
errant. Surely, such a prospect in the future world 
should be of inexpressible interest to every seeker after 
truth and knowledge here on earth. With what joy 
will not a Melanchthon, a Luther, a Calvin, and others 
of their class, understand more about the subjects that 
here so engaged their attention, subjects like the Incar- 
nation, redemption and the Holy Trinity! Indeed, this 
is one of the elements of future blessedness for which 
Melanchthon thought it better to die than to continue 
to live. With what rapture may not even the reverent 


The State of the Saved 235 


man of science, the enthusiastic student of the Al- 
mighty’s wondrous creation, in immediate vision be- 
hold and rejoice in the glorious handiwork of his Fath- 
er and his God! Without the aid of telescope or micro- 
scope or other instruments of investigation, yea even 
of any calculus, he may directly see and understand 
some of the mysteries which here in vain he tried to 
fathom. A delightful occupation of the glorified might 
even be, 


I FUTURE RECOGNITION AND FELLOWSHIP 
“To wander up and down the heavens of space 
With flight of thought and with an angel’s sight 
To read creation’s story, and to trace 
God’s plans for aeons through those realms of light!” 
Ad Astra (L. F. G.) 


There will no doubt also be a recognition of each 
other on the part of those who have passed through 
this world together, even as is illustrated in the case of 
the rich man and Lazarus. And this will, of course, 
also be true after the resurrection and the General 
Judgment. Nor will there be any sorrow, neither be- 
fore nor after the resurrection, for such as may be 
missed among the company of the saved, as we have 
already shown somewhat at length. There will be full 
recognition of, and acquiescence in, God’s justice in 
the case of the unsaved. The soul’s will must have been 
conformed to God’s will. The redeemed will love only 
what God loves. In the future world family relation- 
ships, so necessary in this world, will have been super- 
seded by the higher relationship of children to a com- 
mon Father and of brethren to one another. There 
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are 


236 What ater Death? 


as the angels of God; and this will be true both of the 
pre-resurrection life and also of the post-resurrection 
life. And yet, although the saints will not be distrib- 
uted into families as they are here, there is a sense in 
which it may be said that the mother may find her 
long-lost child, and that the blessed will be in the pres- 
ence of those whom they loved. Moreover, not only will 
the saved recognize those who were their immediate 
associates in this life, but it may be inferred from the 
account of the transfiguration of Jesus, according to 
which the three favored disciples beheld and immedi- 
ately recognized Moses and Elijah, that they will rec- 
ognize the saints of other ages, the great and good that 
will shine as the stars forever and ever. And the fel- 
lowship of the saints will be another element in the joy 
and satisfaction of the redeemed. There will be Adam 
and Noah and Abraham and Moses and Ruth and David 
and Elijah and Isaiah and John and Paul and Mary 
and Athanasius and Augustine and Luther and the 
other mighty men and women of God. And with what 
absorbing interest can they not tell the story of God’s 
providence in their lives and in the secessive epochs 
of the history of the world! Perhaps Tennyson’s words 
are not wholly untrue, 


“And we shall sit at endless feast, 
Enjoying each the other’s good.” 


But the blessed will not be equal in their knowledge 
and understanding of the things of God, for surely dif- 
forent individuals will have different capacities and 
some will have advanced farther than others in their 
progress in the truth. 





The State of the Saved 237 


Iv. SATISFYING ACTIVITY AND CONSEQUENT 
DEVELOPMENT 


This brings us to another element in the blessedness 
of the saved. Theirs will not be a state of mere inac- 
tion, but one in which there will be satisfying activity 
and consequent development. There will no doubt be 
continually new revelations of what God is and of what 
Christ is and has done for the blessed, as there will 
be ever new capacities for knowing and loving God. 
And this will probably be true in the pre-resurrection 
life of the soul, as well as in the post-resurrection life 
of the reunited soul and glorified body. And for this 
fact even nature apparently affords some evidence, as 
we have elsewhere indicated. ‘‘We believe, and are 
convinced, that the evidence from nature, as well as 
the evidence from the human heart, is wholly in accord 
with the evidence from the Christian Scriptures, that 
the physical universe is the colossal . . ._ scaffold- 
ing spoken into being by the Almighty for the working 
out of a higher spiritual purpose. And that purpose is 
undoubtedly the development of the even more glorious 
spiritual kingdom, or spiritual universe, in which glori- 
fied men and seraphic intelligences may dwell and enjoy 
the revelations of His love and the unutterable glory 
of His unfathomable infinite Being forever. Man’s 
powers are developing with almost a prophetic con- 
sciousness toward some great final goal; and we may 
devoutly believe that they are perhaps even fitting him 
better to understand and to appreciate the glories and 
complexities of the world beyond, where in God’s high- 
er spiritual universe they may continue to develop 
throughout eternity, yet forever incommensurable with 
the capacities of his God” (Whence Came the Uni- 
verse? p. 275). | | | 


238 What after Death? 


_ Yes, the future life will be a life of service; but ser- 
vice will be without weariness: it will be the service of 
love and joy. ‘‘The redeemed are said to be destined to 
stand ‘before the throne, and before the Lamb;’ and 
there they may reveal unto the rest of created intelli- 
gences the love of their common Father in the sacrifice 
of His Son, as those who ‘came out of great tribulation 
and have washed their robes and made them white. in 
the blood of the Lamb. . . . And we may reverently 
believe that they may be the only competent beings to 
declare the story of eternal love in Calvary to the sin- 
less creatures which may people other realms and per- 
haps countless millions of worlds that dot the map of 
God’s magnificent empire.” (Whence Came the Un- 
verse? p. 276). 


V THE GLORY OF THE REDEEMED 


The future will, moreover, be a state of glory, of 
glory that is inexpressible. The sense-bound human 
mind here cannot conceive of, nor can language devel- 
oped only for the needs of this world express, the glory 
of the redeemed. This is so by the very nature of the 
case and cannot but be recognized by all thinkers alike, 
even if we had no direct revelation of that fact. With 
enraptured vision they shall behold God. “Therefore are 
they before the throne of God; and they serve him day 
and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the 
throne shall spread his tabernacle over them” (Rev. 
7:15). Weare to be children of God, and in the words 
of St. Paul, ‘‘and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, 
and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer 
with him, that we may be also glorified with him. For 
I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are 
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall 


The State of the Saved 239 


be revealed to us-ward” (Rom. 8:17 and 18). The re- 
deemed shall be with Christ and behold His glory and 
shall become more and more like Him. ‘We all, with 
unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the 
Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory 
to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit” (II. Cor. 
3:18). Indeed, among the most wonderful and elo- 
quent passages in the New Testament Scriptures are 
those in which the Apostles speak of the glory of the 
redeemed; and in these passages we have intimations 
of various elements, and a wide range of glory. 

But the glory of the redeemed and the joy that will 
be theirs will not be complete until after the resurrec- 
tion and the General Judgment, when the body which 
is the instrument of the soul on earth will share in the 
same with that soul in the final heaven of the blessed. 
The deeds of life here will then have had their full out- 
workings, especially those which had their effects upon 
the lives of others. The impress of every individual 
upon this world will then be completed and the final ac- 
counting at the General Judgment will give the meas- 
ure to the rewards of the righteous. Indeed, these will 
not be distributed until the Judgment. The resurrec- 
tion bodies will have new properties and endowments. 
The glorified body will be transfigured by the regen- 
erated indwelling soul. “‘And death shall be no more; 
neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, 
any more: the first things are passed away” (Rev. 21: 
4). “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any 
more; neither shall the sun strike upon them, nor any 
heat: for the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne 
shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto foun- 
tains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every 
tear from their eyes” (Rev. 7:16 and 17). 


240 What after Death? 


VI DIFFERENT DEGREES OF GLORY 


But there will be different degrees of glory. It is 
true that all the saved will be alike in so far as they 
share in a common salvation. But even as individuals 
here are not alike in their capacities to love, know and 
serve and in their potentialities, and yet live in and 
share a common world, so also will they hereafter differ 
in glory, although they share a common salvation and 
a common heaven. They will occupy different posi- 
tions in that same Kingdom of glory, even as here they 
do in the same world of grace. Salvation, in which all 
the redeemed share alike, may be called the condition 
of the glory in degrees of which they differ. That there 
are degrees of glory and differences in rewards among 
the blessed was already quite clearly taught in the Old 
Testament. Thus we are told, “And they that are wise 
shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and 
they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for 
ever and ever” (Dan. 12:3). And Jesus said to the dis- 
ciples, ‘‘Verily I say unto you, that ye who have fol- 
lowed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man 
shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit 
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Is- 
rael” (Matt. 19:28). Thus some will occupy more ex- 
alted positions and will be, as it were, nearer their 
Lord; and their relative positions will depend upon 
their services for good, for God and man, especially 
in bringing others into the kingdom of their Master. 
It is facthfulness here that counts in the distribution 
of the rewards, as illustrated in the parable of the 
pounds. He who had been faithful in making his pound 
gain ten other pounds was given authority over ten 
cities, and he who had made his pound gain five pounds 
was given authority over five cities. Thus as “one star 


The State of the Saved 241 


diifereth from another star in glory,” so will the saints 
of God differ in the great hereafter. 

And yet all will be equally satisfied, for each will re- 
ceive according to his capacity to receive and to use. 
If two persons, one a highly trained musician and the 
other simply an average lover of music, attend the 
same concert, both are thrilled and satisfied. And yet 
the former has a relatively greater appreciation of the 
wonderful harmonies of sound than the other, because 
of his greater capacity to receive and understand them. 
They are both equally satisfied, but with a different 
measure of what may be enjoyed. Two persons may be 
thirsty for a refreshing drink of pure water. The one 
may drink twice as much as the other, and yet they are 
both equally satisfied; nor would the latter in the least 
envy the former, because he received all he could en- 


joy. 


VII HEAVEN A PLACE, AS WELL AS A STATE 


But the erroneous conclusion must not be drawn that 
heaven is only a state without a locus as a background. 
Jesus calls it His Father’s house of many mansions 
(John 14:2). Itis, moreover, described as a city which 
hath foundations, whose Maker and Builder is God 
(Heb. 11:10), or the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). It 
is to be an everlasting home. It is where Christ is 
(Phil. 1:23). It is a place of purity, where sin cannot 
enter, and where the wicked cease from troubling. 
Thus inmany passages of Scripture it is clearly taught 
that heaven is a place, which is adapted to the state of 
the blessed described above; and that place may also 
have a reciprocal bearing upon that state. 

The contention on the part of some thinkers that 


242 What after Death? 


heaven can be only a state or a condition, is based upon 
the fact that a spirit as such cannot strictly be local- 
ized or be said to occupy or be confined by space. But 
the exponents of this theory apparently either ignore 
the reality of the resurrection body, or regard it as a 
purely spiritual entity. It is true that the resurrection 
body is probably not atomically identical with the body 
in this physical world, and yet it retains at least the 
identity of personality. Yes, that body may be said 
to be spiritual, because of spiritual properties in its 
new state and of attributes due to its indwelling glori- 
fied spirit. But why speculate as to the nature of bod- 
ies in the future world, when we do not even know their 
ultimate nature in this world, for the latest science re- 
duces all materiality to energy? And yet, that energy- 
constituted material world occupies space. And what 
is space in its relation to matter even here, when space 
itself is only a relation and is determined by so-called 
matter, according to recent science? 


But it has been contended that at least between death 
and the resurrection of the body there can be no locus 
for the soul as a disembodied spirit. But what we 
have said above as to place or space should itself sug- 
gest the need of modesty in making any dogmatic 
statement even as to that long period before the resur- 
rection. Indeed, as is held by many thinkers now, 
space and time are so related that they must necessar- 
ily exist together. And thus an entity that would be 
spaceless would also needs be timeless. However, St. 
Paul speaks of an ethereal body (II Cor. 5) with which 
we are to be clothed, so that no one can absolutely de- 
clare that the soul will even then be without some locus. 
however ethereal in nature. Thus it would be pre- 
sumptuous to declare that the human spirit will ever 





The State of the Saved 243 


be wholly without an organ of action in some way 
analogous to that through which it operates in this 
world. Hence the future world between death and the 
resurrection would also have to be a place, whatever 
its nature might be. 


It is hardly necessary to say, in closing this discus- 
sion, that many points could not be developed within 
the compass of these pages. Many of the reader’s 
questions have no doubt been left unanswered, while 
others may have been suggested to him in the course of 
his reading. But enough has perhaps been said as to 
what will not and what will be the state of the lost in 
the great hereafter, as well as what will be the state of 
the saved, to afford a correct understanding of the un- 
doubted teaching of the Scriptures on this very inter- 
esting subject. And where certain details have not 
been given, the proper approach to a correct answer of 
Scripture as to such details, may readily be deduced. 
Some points, especially such as the nature of the resur- 
rection body, future blessedness, and heavenly recogni- 
tion, have been given more or less only in outline. 
Much more space might have been devoted to these, but 
the aim has been, as far as possible, to set forth what 
is more definitely revealed and thus to avoid what is 
more speculative. Moreover, to do justice to these 
points, even if in a more speculative vein, a second vol- 
ume should be devoted to them alone. The present con- 
tribution in support of the Scriptural teaching as to 
man in the future world is therefore brought to a close, 
with the hope and prayer that it may prove a blessing 
to many on their journey thither and that it may thus 
redound to the glory of God. 












ic é 








P od ‘ Selly he’ 5 
+ yo wer 
a . Cae 
‘ is ra 
= 7 , 
; F - i ‘ 
~7 thd : . 1 
‘ 
F >4 or » : 
‘ ; v4 kd 
| a e % AALS A 
‘ 
, a we 
alti ast lot ae.” hea 
‘ : he +4 ) * : ae 
i aE ry 
‘ ae ‘ ied Sea! 
, , P ag 
“a 4 e . é 5 
. .) ut ‘ é : Lan h 4: / av. 
1 WW i 
ay s i 
h 1 , 
¥ ih! é 4 : . F 4 > orn a ’ x 
r ' al i : t 
a oe z 
Fs rh Trice? Le ‘ ( , z f Aes ‘ 
" oF ' 7 ‘ i :- 
: ‘. e ry as we ; \ D Se 
Ps i , ts. 
¥ : 4 pee § es eon 
~~ * I, 
i - ‘> a rs Pt A A at 
. a fe va eee, ei i i 
. o wa h : i a 
is d G r . : be AS ALN 
: - ‘ 7 1% ; y i on 3 - P 
bs ; ' : ) ‘4 i >: 
‘a « ‘ ‘ r _ ® 
. 4 , r } aa ' fi : te - gas = i 
hey ‘s ‘ ‘ ; i ote “ao weaey 
i : ~— | 
a! “ , ‘ > Sr, , . LO) és a | at, a 
= a) < ys | + t : ‘ an - 
fs A, Pe ps Md Fo mh ; id VV ‘ Af6 
, 
4! J ‘ 4% 1f ’ oe , 
¥ 7 yi i ~ 0 ; ” fe. 
Vo ie « ay 
tT 4 i x 1 f ] : a ye } a . s 
* . ] ~ i 
A 8 
f pe * i “ ; s] 4 nal 
> + 
é . , 
y od = Ps 
: ; re Da eS A HAL te Re 
o2.7 ‘ | 4 
- 
a <= y . _ » 
7 at f ads es ee a Le rey ih LS i 
iy ~ * — 
w f 
“ek - ;, 3 ~ 7 ¢ i i Bei = 32 a 
i « / > sa ‘ . - a eae ©, a. et iat | 7. a 
fia oe <h us a j 7 f “i Cee 
MA =o a a 4% Coie ih) DTS ere 
v : Me = > i 
' + , 4 >. 4 ‘ : -S 2) FAR 
i, 4 ir ‘ - g,@54 ne 4 / ok wae’ A we. A @ - , . ie 
Sg OF al ~ bé 2 (ct “4 s Co Pe ee bites bd * a fy Ol | ¥4 Sis, 3 ER 
7 ys 7 , oe 
t , : | et F ey > m the ’ 
* j E: ny, : ‘ nL — run i Ay ers ag i 
; ? ‘ 5 , I re Ges W* 94 ao iy A ny ah 
. if Hi ' 
¥ : een ONAN eo arate a) ae arly ii ae 
7 oe 24 6 i ily * + 1d $+) Fae : i) Yelle Ut hae . qi atK 
ss ' . i r j . ys 
vee aise aa ae > 
j . : 
s al . ‘i 
i an ' * ‘ é . Po.) er J ' ) pd ¥ 
1 a = cA yet are wal in Mi Sa A bi ¥ oe 


F ‘ i, of is -{F ph i} 2 ny : , Coe ie yi Has ; an es iw Pes ca se , 


| PRS Arh: oes tees an) te ters ie eke f cme, 
rare Re ede a rf ace | seas" Bae BLT iets laude 


ye cae, We 003 ‘ ae - 
SE peerine. 5 ba pt! xf ae iva. vate: BIB fe 


ters ans ps eae sen 






INDEX 


Abraham’s Bosom, 28. 
Activity, as part of joy of redeemed, 237, 238. 
Annihilationism, 27ff. 
John Locke, Archbishop Whately, Rothe, exponents of, 27; 
Buechner, Fuerbach, Moleschott, Fichte, Strauss, Spinoza, 
exponents of philosophic, 28, rig Ps 
penal, 30ff.; 
properly so called. SAI i 
argument for, fallacious, 40ff. 
Apostolic Succession, papal, a historic figment, 122. 
Aquinas, Thomas, on purgatory, 91. 
Athanasius, against theory of universal salvation, 141. 
Atonement Sate urged in defense of universal salvation, 
14 : 
argument for universal! salvation from, answered, 158ff. 
Augustine, on some purgatorial fire, 97; 
against theory of universal salvation, 141. 
Auricular Confession, 124, 125; 
Catechism of Perseverance and Council of Trent on, 124. 
Balfour, Rev. Walter, exponent of universalism, 142. 
Ballou, Rev. Hosea, father of modern universalism, 142. 
Bellarmine, on purgatory, 87, 88, 92; 
on papal infallibility, 126. 
Blessedness, nature of future, 231ff: 
one of full consciousness, 232, 233; 
one of more direct knowledge and better understanding, 
204, 265% 
one of fellowship, 235, 236; 
one of satisfying activity, 237, 238. 
Bonaventura, on purgatory, 91. 
Buechner, an exponent of philosophic annihilationism, 28. 
Catchism of Perseverance, on purgatory, 88, 92, 93; 
on source of indulgences, 115; 
on auricular confession, 124; 
on prayers for the dead, 131. 
Chance, “‘fair,’”? question of, considered, 67ff. 
Children, unbaptized, no future probation necessary for, 62. 
Christian Science, illustrating Satan’s approach and method, 


190. 

Clement of Alexandria, on some purgatorial fire, 91; 

an early exponent of universal salvation, 141ff. 
Concessions, of exponents of universal salvation, 182ff. 
Conditional immortality, 31ff.; 

Scriptures cited in proof of, APES RR 

answer to theory of, eae 
Confession, auricular, 124, 
Consciousness, of soul after Ment 52ff., 232, 233. 
Continued being, for both righteous and ‘unrighteous, 45; 


246 INDEX 


for both righteous and unrighteous, of equal duration, 46; 
for both righteous and unrighteous, a fully conscious one, 


in aereirent not inconsistent with God’s love, 48. 
Creation, purpose of, 237. 
Creed, gradual. dev elopment of Apostles’, 177. 
Death, a dissolution or separation, 44; 
physical, a separation of soul from body, 44; 
spiritual, a separation from God, 44; 
eternal, a separation from God that is eternal, 44. 
Death and destruction, meaning of terms, 40ff. 
Degrees, different, of glory and of punishment, 229, 241. 
Deharbe, on indulgences, 114; 
on applying of indulgences to souls in purgatory, 114, 115. 
Deity, proofs for Christ’s, DiS eta. 
Destiny, fixed at death, 79, S2FF. 
Destruction and death, meaning of terms, 40ff. 
Doctrines, many questioned in early Church, 176ff. 
Dorner, on possible offer of salvation in future world, 151; 
answer to, 152, 1538; 
not in sympathy with Universalism as a sect, 153; 
interpretation of Revelation by, 178, 174. 
Dunkers, early, of Pennsylvania, taught universal restoration, 
142 


Encyclopedia, Catholic, on purgatory, 90, 96, 97, 99; 
on power of keys and indulgences, 118. 
Eternalism 195ff. 
accepted by ancient Jews, 200ff.; 
taught by Christ, 202; 
taught by the apostles, 202; 
not contrary to reason, 203; 
involved in nature of sin, 204; 
objections as to, answered, 206ff.; 
necessitated by other doctrines, 212ff.; 
necessitated by nature and greatness of sin, 212ff.; 
necessitated by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, 215ff.; 
necessitated by Deity of Christ, 217ff. 
Eternity, how expressed, 198; 
inadequacy of language ‘directly to express idea of, 199. 
Evil, persistence in, 205. 


Fagnini, Prospero, on pope’s authority, 126. 
“Pair” chance, question of, considered, 67ff. 
Faith, salvation only by, 68. 
Farrar, on future probation, Tests 
answer to Farrar’s argument for future probation, 73; 
followed by Shutter, 72: 
on persistence in evil, 205; 
against conditional immortality, 205. 
Fathers, alleged evidence for purgatory from, 96, 97. 





“th 


INDEX 24 


Fellowship, an element in joy of the blessed, 285, 236. 

Ferrara-Florence, Council of, on purgatory, 86, 92. 

Fichte, SE een Strauss, exponents of philosophic annihilation- 
ism, 28, 

Fixedness of Seton tendency toward, an element against 
future probation, 82. 

Freedom, human, of choice, not extended to future world, 154, 
1 


Future punishment, belief in, universal, 10; 
not inconsistent with God’s love, 10, 48: 
Dr. Phelps on, 11. 


Gehenna, meaning of, 15, 16, 23, 24. 
Gerson, in history of doctrine of purgatory, 91. 
Gibbons, Cardinal, on purgatory, 89, 94ff.; 
concedes purgatory not taught in Scripture, 105; 
on indulgences, 118, 114; 
on papal infallibility, 126; 
on prayers for the dead, 130. 
Glory, different degrees of, 229, 241; 
of redeemed, 238; 
of future life inconceivable in this life, 238, 239; 
not complete till after resurrection and judgment, 239. 
Goodness, of God, urged in defense of universal salvation, 
1 se 
argument from, not valid, 146ff.; 
argument from, answered by Christ and apostles, 155, 156. 
Government, by law, 9ff.; 
in future world, 10. 
Grace, day of, ended with death, 78ff. 
Gregory, ae Great, teaching concerning purgatory at time of, 
1 


Gruber, on the soul, 29; 
on possible occupation of the redeemed, 235, 238; 
on purpose of creation and glory of the redeemed, 237. 


Hades, meaning of term, 21-23; 
as a translation of Sheol, 21; 
as a place of retribution between death and resurrection, 
Ze 


Heathen, no future probation necessary for, 61, 62, 69, 70. 
Heaven, a place, as well as a state, 241, 242. 
Human satisfactions, in proof of pureatory, 107ff.; 

Wiseman on, in proof of purgatory, 107, 109. 


Immortality, of soul, points in proof of, 37, 38. 
Indulgences, closely related to doctrine of purgatory, 113; 
Gardinal Gibbons on, 113, 114; 
Deharbe on, 114, on application of, to souls in purgatory, 
114, 115; 


248 INDEX 


Wiseman on, 114; 


Lepecier, on application of, to souls in purgatory, 114, 115; 


Spirago-Clarke on application of, to souls, 115; 
Catechism of Perseverance on source of, 115: 
Kinane on reciprocal blessings from, 116; 
Council of Trent on, 116; 
summary of areument against, chines 
basis of, in power of keys, 118. 
Infallibility, ‘papal, Fagnini, Poitiers, et al., on, 126, 127; 
whole argument for, based upon false premises, 128, 129. 
Intermediate state, no, common to spirits of saved and of lost, 


Jewish belief, as to duration of punishment, 200ff. 
Judgment, general, for both righteous and unrighteous, 45. 
Justice, of God, argument for universal salvation from, 168ff. 


King, Thomas Starr, admission as to universal salvation by, 183. 
Knowledge, more direct in future world, 234, 235; 
factor of, in salvation, 68. 
Kunze, G., an exponent of conditional immortality, 31. 
Language, phenomenal nature of, 195ff.; 
as used by inspired writers, 196; 
by adaptations, etc., used with new meanings, 196ff.; 
inadequacy of, directly to express ideas of eternity, etc., 
196, 199. 
Law, all things governed by, 9; 
life here governed by, 10; 
written on heart, 69. 
Lepecier, oy application of indulgences to souls in purgatory, 
115. 
Liturgies, ot the Church, alleged evidence for purgatory from, 
8 


Locke, John, an exponent of annihilationism, 21. 


Maccabees, Second, in proof of purgatory, 938, 95; 

of no weight as proof of purgatory, 133. 
Martin, on purgatory, 102, 103, 104. 
Memory, as an element of ‘future punishment, 227, 228. 
Moleschott, an exponent of philosophic annihilationism, 28. 
Murray, Rev. James, early authority for universalism, 142. 
Miller, Julius, on possible future offer of salvation, 151. 


Necessity, philosophic, urged in defense of universalism, 167, 
168. 


Omnipotence, of God, urged in defense of universal salvation, 
161 tire 
argument for universal salvation from, not valid, 162ff. 
Opportunities, unequal, 66. 
Origen, on some pureatorial fire, 91. 


Paradise, 23. 


ee 


INDEX 249 


Penance, in proof of purgatory, 108, 109; 
Wiseman on, in proof of purgatory, 108: 
Catechism of Perseverance on, in proof of purgatory, 109. 
Peter, not pope of Rome, 121, 122. 
Phelps, Dr. Austin, on doctrine and certainty of future punish- 
ment, 11. 
Plato, on a purgatorial fire, 
Poitiers, Bishop, on papal eafallibility, L2t: 
Pope, supremacy of, 119; 

Wiseman on, 119, 122; 

Wilhelm & Scannell on, 119; 

no Scriptural or historic foundation for, as successor of 
St. Peter, 121; 

Deharbe, Spirago-Clarke, Cardinal Gibbons, Bellarmine, 
and Freeman’s Catholic Register, on infallibility of, 
T2526. 

Power, of keys, the foundation of indulgences, 118; 

Wiseman and Catholic Encyclopedia on, 118; 

alleged basis of, 120; 

meaning of, 122, 123. 

Prayers, for dead, Cardinal Gibbons, Wiseman, Catechism of 
Perseverance, Lepecier, Kinane, on, 130, 131. 
Preaching, Christ’s, in spiritual world, not the Gospel unto sal- 

vation, 74ff. 
Probation, future, no, for heathen and unbaptized children, 68, 


4, 

argument for, fallacious, 63ff. ; 

no, for the impenitent, 7Off.; 

this life the only period for, 71: 

ceases with death, 71; 

Farrar on, 72; 

Scriptures quoted for, not applicable, 76ff. 
Probationism, 61ff.; 

reason for theory of, 61; 

disproved by Scripture, 77ff. 
Psychopannychism, 51ff.; 

meaning of term, 51; 

alleged Scriptural evidence for, 51ff.; 

the dead spoken of as asleep, 51ff.; 

the dead spoken of as at rest, 53ff.; 

misapplication of Scripture for, 52ff.; 

other Scriptural evidence against, 55ff.; 

founded upon false premises, 58. 
Punishment, future, unequal, 65, 66; 

nature ‘of, 220ff.; 

difficulty of revealing nature of, 220; 

of a negative nature, 221ff.; 

in separation from righteous, a 

in separation from God, 222; 

in separation from all eood, 223; 

of a positive nature, QO3fF. : 

terms used to describe, O24fF. ; 


250 INDEX 


of a subjective character, 227ff.; 
- memory as an element in, 227, 228; 
remorse as an element of, 228: 
different degrees of, 229. 
Purgationism, 85ff. 
Purgatory, authoritative statement of doctrine of, 85ff.:; 

Council of Florence on, 86, 92; 

Bellarmine on, 87, 88, 92; 

Kinane on, 88, 96, 104; 

Catechism of Perseverance on, 88, 92, 93; 

Spirago-Clarke on, 88; 

Wilhelm & Scannell on, 89, 100, 101; 

Cardinal Gibbons on, 89, 94-97; 

Catholic Encyclopedia on, 90, 96ff. ; 

history of doctrine of, 90- 92; 

Tertullian, Clement af Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Gre- 
gory the Great, Aquinas, Bonaventura, Gerson, on, 91; 

Rome’s proofs for, ‘92fF. ; 

Second Maccabees in proof, of, 93, 95; 

sin against the Holy Ghost in proof of, 93, 95-97; 

tradition of Catholic Church in proof of, 95793" 

tradition of ancient sects in proof of, 93, 98; 

tradition of pagans in proof of, 938; 

proofs for, inadequate, 93ff.; 

alleged evidence for, from the Fathers, 96, 97; 

alleged evidence for, from liturgies, 98; 

other speculative proofs for, 99ff.; 

Wiseman on, 100, 133: 

proofs for, a reasoning in a circle, 101; 

Martin on, 102, 103; 

not really taught i in Scripture, according to Gibbons, Wise- 
man, Spirago-Clarke, Wilhelm & Scannell, 105, 106; 

penance in proof of, 109; 

Wiseman on human satisfactions and penance in proof of, 


108, 109; 
Paes of Perseverance on human satisfactions in proof 
ty) 


works of Si parerOeuTen in proof of, 110, 111; 

Wiseman on supererogation in proof of, 111; 

indulges in proof of, 113ff.; 

power of keys in proof of, 119ff. ; 

papal infallibility in proof of, 125ff.; 

whole argument for, based upon false premises, 129, 132; 

argument for, from doctrine and practice of praying for 
the dead, 130ff.; 

direct evidence of Scripture against doctrine of, 132ff.; 

Second Maccabees of no value as evidence for, 133; 

early Fathers of no value as evidence for, 133; 

salvation by faith in Christ’s merits against doctrine of, 
133, 184, 


Recognition, future, an element in blessedness, 235, 236. 


INDEX 251 


Reformers, on future punishment, 178. 
Relly Rev. "James, first American exponent of universalism, 142. 
Remorse, an element in future punishment, 228. 
Restorationism, theory of, 148. 
Retribution, illustrated in nature, 9-11; 
testimony of Scripture as to, 11ff.; 
Old Testament on, 12, 138; 
New Testament on, i3ff. ; 
Christ’s teaching on, in parables, 14, 15: 
Christ’s direct teaching on, 15, 16; 
other New Testament testimony on, hee 
Rewards, future, unequal, 64, 65. 
Russell, ‘Pastor,’ theory of, untenable, 59, 75. 


Satan, method of, in approach to soul, 189ff. 
Sawyer, T. J., in correspondence with Tholuch, 154. 
Schleiermacher, attitude of, toward universalism, 154, 209. 
Shakespeare, on suicide, 186, 210. 
Shedd, on danger of rejecting doctrine of eternalism, 212. 
Sheol, meaning of term, 18-21. 
Shutter, Marion D., on “fair” chance, 638, 64; 

on terms hell and damnation, 74; 

on subjugation of sinners, 165; 

on universalism vs. eternalism, 175; 

admission of, as to universal salvation, 183, 184; 

on punishment and sin, 206; 

on reality of sin, 213; 

on resurrection and judgment, 214ff.; 

on forgiveness, 217; 

on Deity of Christ, 218. 
Sin, against the Holy Ghost, in proof of purgatory, 93, 95, 97. 
Soul, materialistic conception of, 28; 

‘pantheistic conception of, 29; 

not a function of body, 28 

points in proof of immor tality of, 37, 38 

not asleep or unconscious after death, B1ft., 232, 233; 

not dependent upon body for existence, 59. 
Spirago-Clarke, on purgatory, 88; 

on purgatory not being taught in Scripture, 106; 

on applying indulgences to souls in purgatory, 115; 

on papal infallibility, 126. 
State of lost, 220ff.; 

little revealed as to, 220; 

difficulty of revealing, to man in present state, 220; 

one of punishment, both positive and negative in nature, 


221ff. 
State of saved, 231ff.; 
source of information, PED PAYA 
one of consciousness ‘immediately after death, 232, 234; 
one on ae direct knowledge and better understanding. 
234, 235; 


252 INDEX 


: one of blessed fellowship, 235, 236. 
Succession, apostolic, papal, a historic figment, 122. 

Suicide, uncouraged by theory of universal salvation, 186; 
Shakespeare on, 186, 210. 

Supererogation, works of, in proof of purgatory, 110, 111; 
Wiseman and Kinane on, in proof of purgatory, 111; 
Scriptures against theory of, 112, 118. 

Sympathy, of saved with the lost, argument for universal sal- 

vation from, 171, 172. 


Tartarus, 24. 
Tennyson, In Memoriam quoted, 29, 192, 228; 
on final triumph of good, 192 
Terms, primary and derived meaning of, 17; 
Sheol, 18-21; 
Hades, 21-23; 
Paradise, 23; 
Abraham’s Bosom, 23; 
Gehenna, 23, 24; 
Tartarus, 24. 
Tertullian, on purgatorial fire, 91; 
blamed for doctrine of eternalism, 175ff. 
Tetzel, indulgences under, 117. 
Tholuch, attitude toward universalism, 154. 
Tradition, of Catholic Church, in proof of purgatory, 93, 97; 
of ancient sects, in proof of purgatory, 93, 98; 
of pagans, in proof of purgatory, 93. 
Trent, Council of, on purgatory, 86, 87, 92; 
on indulgences, 116; 
on authority in forgiving sins, 123; 
on necessity of confession, 124. 


Unitarianism, Universalism as practical, 173; 
leads to Universalism, 218. 

Universalism, 141ff.; 
history of, 141, 142: 
Clement of Alexandria and Origen early exponents of, 141; 
Athanasius and Augustine against theory of, 141; 
modern exponents of, 142; 
as a denomination, 142: 
forms of, 148; 
basis of theory of, 143; 
arguments urged in defense Of l4oti.s 
argument from God’s goodness for, 145ff. ; 
Dorner and Julius Miller, on, 151; 
Dorner not in sympathy with sect of, 152, 153; 
Schliermacher and Tholuch not real exponents of, 154; 
Christ’s atonement in defense of, 156ff.; 
omnipotence of God in defense of, 161ff.; 
philosophic necessity in defense of, 167, 168; 
justice of God in defense of, 168; 
sympathy of saved with lost in defense Of FT Att 


INDEX 253 


history and tradition as evidence for, 172-174; 

and Scripture irreconcilable, 180; 

Sapa E by its groundlessness and inherent weaknesses, 
180ff.; 

concessions by its exponents as to, 183ff.; 

moral dangers involved in theory of, 185ff.; 

not a religion for apostles and missionaries to preach, 187, 
188; 

akin to argument of Satan in Eden, 189ff.; 

fundamental fallacies of, 191ff.; 

essentially Unitarian, 193; 

danger of holding theory of, 194; 

leads to Unitarianism, 218. 

Unrighteous, the, to have continued conscious being, 45, 46; 
to share in resurrection and general judgment, 45, 46. 


Waldron, A. J., admission as to universal salvation by, 184, 185. 
White, Edward, an exponent of conditional immortality, 31. 
Wilhelm & Scannell, on purgatory, 89, 100, 101; 
on powers of keys, 19. : 
Wiseman, Cardinal, on purgatory, 100; 
concedes purgatory not taught in Scripture, 105, 106; 
on human satisfactions in proof of purgatory, 108; 
on works of supererogation in proof of purgatory, 111; 
on indulgences, 114; 
on power of keys, 119, 122; 
on prayers for the dead, 131, 1382. 
Words, as vessels of ideas, 17; 
meaning of, in different ages and for different individuals, 


paki 
Swingli, on sin as a bad habit, 213. 
on works of supererogation in proof of purgatory, 111; 
on indulgences, 114; 
on power of keys, 119, 122; 
on prayers for the dead, 131, 132. 
meaning of, in different ages and for different individuals, 











oh 


j ad 
ae 











